ORIGINAL 

Jf n tbe Wniteb ~tates QCourt of jf eberal QClaints 

No. l 7-572C 

(Filed: June 1, 2017) 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

ELIAHU YECHESKEL, et. al., 

Subject-matter Jurisdiction. 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE UNITED STATES, 

Defendant. 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

ORDER 

FILED 

JUN - 1 2017 

U.S. COURT OF 

FEDERAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiffs, appearing pro se, filed their complaint on April 26, 2017, 

seeking to enjoin the Federal Housing Finance Agency "from continuing with 

its inaction and tolerance of [several contractors'] wrongful behavior and 

wrongful actions, the latest of which is [a] foreclosure filing in Montgomery 

County Circuit Court .. .. " Compl. if I. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the 

government, through its contractors, violated the requirements of the Truth in 

Lending Act and its implementingRegulationZ, 12 C.F.R. 226.23, along with 

similar Maryland state laws. Plaintiffs also request that we determine the 

validity of certain documents and ask that we set aside a judgment entered in 

state court. 

Jurisdiction is a threshold matter, and the court may raise the issue sua 

sponte at any time. Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 

2004). Although plaintiffs are appearing pro se, and pro se litigants are 

afforded latitude in their filings, we cannot excuse jurisdictional failings. See 

Kelly v. US. Sec'y of Dep 't of Labor, 812 F.3d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ("a 

court may not similarly take a liberal view of that jurisdictional requirement 

and set a different rule for prose litigants only"). It is unnecessary to wait for 

further filings in this case because it is clear from the face of the complaint that 

plaintiffs have not alleged a claim over which this court has jurisdiction. 

7012 3460 0001 7791 8088 
The Tucker Act, this court's primary grant of jurisdiction, affords us the 

authority to "render judgment upon any claim against the United States 

founded either upon the constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation 

of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the 

United States ... in cases not sounding in tort." 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (a)(l) 

(2012). Thus plaintiffs must allege that there is a constitutional, statutory, or 

regulatory provision that directs that they are presently owed some amount of 

money or that they have a contract with the government under which they are 

owed payment. Because plaintiffs have not done so, their complaint must be 

dismissed. 

To begin with, we do not have general equitable jurisdiction to provide 

the non-monetary relief plaintiffs seek. Outside the context of a bid protest, 

equitable relief may only be provided as an incident of and collateral to a 

money judgment. See James v. Caldera, 159 F.3d 573, 580 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

Plaintiffs' complaint does not include allegations that could plausibly lead to 

such a circumstance. Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs' 

claims for injunctive or declaratory relief. 

Much of plaintiffs' complaint focuses on a foreclosure proceeding in 

Maryland state court. Plaintiffs ask us to dismiss that action with prejudice 

and to set aside prior orders entered in that case. We do not have appellate 

jurisdiction to review state court judgments. Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 

(2006) (holding that, "under what has come to be known as the RookerFeldman doctrine, lower federal courts are precluded from exercising appellate 

jurisdiction over final state-court judgments.") We also do not have 

jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims, even in the first instance, to the extent that 

they are based on Maryland state law. Souders v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth., 497 

F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that claims founded on state law are 

"outside the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims"). 

We also lack jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims that are based on 

federal law. Plaintiffs' complaint primarily implicates the Truth in Lending 

Act and the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. While theses statutes 

are "Acts of Congress," they do not create a private right of action for money 

damages against the federal government in this circumstance. Accordingly, 

we do not have jurisdiction. 

2 
Finally, this court does not have jurisdiction over tort claims. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 149l(a)(l). Consequently, plaintiffs' fraud claims are not properly before 

the court. 

Because it is clear that we do not have subject-matter jurisdiction over 

any of the allegations in plaintiffs' complaint, it must be dismissed. As a result 

the following is ordered: 

I. The clerk's office is ordered to dismiss the complaint for lack of 

jurisdiction and enter judgment accordingly. No Costs. 

2. Plaintiffs' "emergency motion," filed on May 22, 2017, is denied as 

moot. 

3 

ERIC 

~·~. G. BRUGGINK 

Senior Judge