# ORIGINAL Jf

# n tbe Wniteb**~tates** 

# QCourt ofjf 

# eberal QClaints

No. l7-572C (Filed: June 1, 2017) NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

### * * * * * 

## * * * * * 

## * * * * * * * * * * * * ELIAHU YECHESKEL, et. al., Subject-matter Jurisdiction. Plaintiffs,

v.

THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. 

### * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

## * * * *
ORDER 

# FILED J

UN - 12017 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

Plaintiffs, appearingpro se, filed their complaint on April 26, 2017, seeking to enjoin the Federal HousingFinance Agency "from continuing with its inaction and tolerance of [several contractors'] wrongful behavior and wrongful actions, the latest ofwhich 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 ofthe Truth in LendingAct and its implementingRegulationZ, 12 C.F.R. 226.23 , alongwith similar Maryland state laws. Plaintiff s also request that we determine the validity ofcertain 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 excusejurisdictional failings. See Kelly v. US. Sec'y of Dep 't of Labor, 812F.3d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ("a court may not similarly take a liberal view ofthatjurisdictional requirement and set a different rule forprose litigants only" )

. 

### It is unnecessary to wait for further filings in this casebecause it is clearfrom the face of the complaintthat plaintiffs have not alleged a claim over which this court hasjurisdiction.

7012 3460 0001 7791 8088The TuckerAct, this court'sprimary 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 ofCongress or any regulation ofan 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 equitablejurisdiction to provide the non-monetary reliefplaintiffs seek. Outside the context ofa bid protest, equitable relief may only be provided as an incident of and collateral to a moneyjudgment. 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 havejurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims for injunctive or declaratory relief. Much ofplaintiffs' 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 courtjudgments. 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 limitedjurisdiction ofthe Court ofFederal 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 ofCongress," they do not create a private right ofaction for money damages against the federal government in this circumstance. Accordingly, we do not havejurisdiction.

2Finally, this court does not havejurisdiction 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-matterjurisdiction over any ofthe allegations in plaintiffs' complaint, it mustbe dismissed. As a result the following is ordered: I. The clerk's office is ordered to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and enterjudgment accordingly. No Costs. 2. Plaintiffs' "emergency motion," filed on May 22, 2017, is denied as moot.

3

# ~·~. ERIC G. BRUGGINK Senior Judge