# ORIGINAL

KERRITH DUVALL, et al., Plaintiffs,

v. 

### THEUNITED STATES, Defendant. No. 18-313C Filed June 5, 2018 NOTFORPUBLICATION 

## JUN
- 52018 ) ) ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) ) ) U

.S

. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 

### Prose; RCFC 12(b)(l); Subject-Matter Jurisdiction; Money-Mandating Source Of Law; In Forma Pauperis; Habeas Corpus; Section 1983

.

### ~~**~~~ ~~** **~~-)** Kerrith Duvall, Robert Cotner, and DennisMartin, Lexington, OK, plaintiffsprose. Albert

### S. Iarossi, Trial Attorney, Lisa L. 

### Donahue, Assistant Director,RobertE
. Kirschman, Jr., Director, ChadA. Read ier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department ofJustice, Washington, DC, for defendant. 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRIGGSBY, Judge 

### I

. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffsprose, Kerrith Duvall, Robe1t Cotner, and Dennis Ma1tin, brought this action seeking to enforce ajudgmentallegedly entered intheir favor by this Cou1t in a prior case and to recover, among other things, monetary damages from the government. See generally Compl.; Am. Compl. The government has moved to dismiss this matterfor lack ofsubject-matter jurisdiction, pursuantto Rule 12(b)(l) ofthe Rules ofthe United States Cour t ofFederal Claims ("RCFC"). See generally Def. Mot. Mr. Duvall and Mr. Cotnerhave also moved to proceed in this ma tter informapauperis. See generally Pl. Mot. to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Feb. 27, 2018, at Ent ry No. 4; Pl. Mot. to ProceedIn Forma Pauperis, Mar. 13, 2018, atEntry No

. 6
.



### 7017 1450 DODD 1346 1970Forthe reasons discussed below, the Court: (1) 

### GRANTS the government's motion to dismiss; (2) 

### GRANTS plaintiffs' motions to proceed 

### informapauperis; and (3) 

### DISMISSES the amended complaint. 

### II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 

### A. Factual Background As background, plaintiffs

### prose, Ken·ith Duvall, Robert Cotner, and Dennis Martin are currently incarcerated in the Joseph Harp Correctional Center located in Lexington, Oklahoma. 

### SeeDuvallv. UnitedStates, No. 17-1788C, 2018 WL617641, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 30, 2018). Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this matter on February 27, 2018, and subsequently filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2018. 

### See generally Comp!.; Am. Comp!. Plaintiffs' handwritten complaint and amended complaint are difficult to follow. But, it appears that plaintiffs seek to enforce ajudgment allegedly entered in their favor by this Court in a prior case. 

### See generally Comp!.; Am. Comp!. As relief, plaintiffs seek, among otherthings, $3 billion in monetary damages from the government and various forms ofinjunctive relief. 

### See Comp!. at 1; Am. Comp!. at 

### 1. 

### 1. Plaintiffs' Claims PlaintiffKerrith Duvall alleges in the amended complaintthat he has suffered more than $1 billion in losses "because ofdefendant's refusal to protecthis rights and because oflaws, policy and acts ofdefendant's agents." Am. Comp!. at 1. Mr. Duvall alleges that, because the Court "found true" his allegations in a previous case before the Court, the only remaining issue to be resolved by the Court is ajudgment awarding him compensation and damages. Id. As relief, Mr. Duvall requests that, among other things, the government: (1) pay $1 billion "directly
onthe principle [sic] ofthe national debt;" (2) pay him an additional $10,000 "cash;" and (3) permit himto open an Indian casino. 

### Id.

1The facts recited in this Memorandum Opinion and Order are taken from the complaint ("Comp!."); the amended complaint ("Arn. Comp!."); and the government's motion to dismiss ("Def Mot."). Unless otherwise noted herein, the facts recited are undisputed. Due to plaintiffs'prose status, the Court considers the allegations set fmth in both the complaint and amended complaintfor the purpose of resolving the government's motion to dismiss.
2In the amended complaint, plaintiffRobert Cotner alleges thathe is entitled to recover more than $1 billion from the government, due to the government's "refusal to protectthe church's rights in Creek County, [Oklahoma]" because of"laws, policy, and acts ofdefendant's agents." 

### Id. Mr. Cotner further alleges that he suffered a loss as a result ofthe government's "breach ofsocial contract, policy, practices, acts ofits agents, [impediments] and refusal to protect [his] Federal rights in [Oklahoma] state courts." Id. at 2. As relief, Mr. Cotnerrequests that, among other things, the government: (1) pay $1 billion "directly on the principle [sic] of the national debt;" (2) pay him an additional $30,000; and (3) provide "considerationbythe Pentagon-Defense Intelligence Agency" for an intelligence services contract. Id. at 2. Lastly, plaintiffDennis Martin seeksjudicial review of"the merits ofhis Federal 2241 habeas" petition. 

### Id at 3. In plaintiffs' response to the government's motion to dismiss, plaintiffs make a number of additional claims against the federal government, the State ofOklahoma, and other individuals and entities. 

### See generally Pis. Resp. Plaintiffs also allege violations ofvarious provisions of the United States Constitution and the United Nations' Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights. 

### See Pis. Resp. at 1-4, Ex. A at 1, Ex.Bat 3.2 

### 2. Plaintiffs' Prior Litigation On November 13, 2017, plaintiffs filed an action in this Court seeking monetary and injunctive reliefalleging that the federal government and state government ofOklahomadenied certainrights afforded by the "anti-slavery clause" ofthe Thirteenth Amendmentto the United States Constitution. 

### See Duvall v. UnitedStates, 2018 WL 617641, at *1. The Court dismissed plaintiffs' case for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction on January 30, 2018. 

### Id. at *3. After plaintiffs appealed the Court's dismissal decision, they moved to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, and the United States Court ofAppeals for the Federal Circuit granted the motion onApril 26, 2018. 

### Duvall v. UnitedStates, No. 17-1788C (Fed. Cl. April 26, 2018), at Entry No. 22.

2 Plaintiffs further allege the denial ofveterans' benefits and social security benefits in their response to the government's motion to dismiss. See Pis. Resp. at Ex. A at I. 3B. Procedural History 

### Plaintiffs commenced this action on February 27, 2018. 

### See generally Comp!. On February 27, 2018, Mr. Cotner filed a motion to proceed inthis matter 

### informapauperis. See generally Pl. Mot. to Proceed 

### In Forma Pauperis, Feb. 27, 2018, at Entry No. 4. OnMarch 13, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. 

### See generally Am. Comp!. On March 13, 2018, Mr. Duvall filed a motion to proceed inthis matter 

### informapauperis. See generally Pl. Mot. to Proceed 

### In Forma Pauperis, Mar. 13, 2018, at Entry No. 6. On April 25, 2018, the government filed a motion to dismiss this matter, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(l). 

### See generally Def. Mot. On May 8, 2018, plaintiffs filed a response and opposition to the government's motion to dismiss. 

### See generally Pis. Resp. On May 22, 2018, the government filed a reply in support ofits motion to dismiss. 

### See generally Def. Reply. These matters having been fully briefed, the Court resolves the pending motions. III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW A. Pro Se Litigants 

### Plaintiffs are proceeding in this matter

### prose, without the benefit ofcounsel. And so, the Court applies the pleading requirements leniently. 

### Beriont v. GTELabs., Inc., 535 F. App'x 919, 925-26 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing 

### McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501F.3d1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). When determining whether a complaint filed by a

### proseplaintiffis sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, this Court affords more leeway under the rules to

### pro se plaintiffs than plaintiffs who are represented by counsel. 

### See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594 (1972) (holding that

### prose complaints, "however inartfully pleaded," are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"); 

### Matthews v. UnitedStates, 750 F.3d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2014). But, there "is no duty onthe part ofthe trial court to create a claim which [the plaintiff! has not spelled out in his pleading." 

### Lengen v. UnitedStates, 100 Fed. Cl. 317, 328 (2011) (brackets existing) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 

### Scogin
v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 285, 293 (1995)). While "a 

### pro se plaintiffis held to a less stringent standard than that ofa plaintiff represented by an attorney ...the

### pro se plaintiff, nevertheless, bears the burden ofestablishing the Court'sjurisdiction by a preponderance ofthe evidence." 

### Riles v. UnitedStates, 93 Fed. Cl. 4163, 165 (2010) (citing 

### Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). And so, the Court may excuse ambiguities, butnot defects, inthe complaint. 

### Colbert v. UnitedStates, 617 F. App'x 981, 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015); 

### see also Demes v. UnitedStates, 52 Fed. Cl. 365, 368 (2002) ("[T]he leniency afforded

### prose litigants withrespect to mere formalities does notrelieve them of jurisdictional requirements."). 

### B. RCFC 12(b)(l) When deciding a motion to dismiss uponthe ground thatthe Court does not possess subject-matterjurisdiction pursuantto RCFC 12(b)(l), this Courtmust assume that all undisputed facts alleged inthe complaint are true and must draw all reasonable inferences inthe non-movant's favor. 

### Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); 

### see also RCFC 12(b)(l). But, plaintiffbears the burden ofestablishing subject-matterjurisdiction, and he must do so by a preponderance ofthe evidence. 

### Reynolds v. Army & 

### AirForce Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Should the Comt determine that "itlacksjurisdiction over the subject matter, it must dismiss the claim." 

### Matthews v. UnitedStates, 72 Fed. Cl. 274, 278 (2006). In this regard, the United States Court ofFederal Claims is a court oflimitedjurisdiction and "possess[es] only that power authorized by Constitution and statute...." 

### Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The Tucker Act grants the Court jurisdiction over: [A]ny claim against the United States founded either uponthe Constitution, or any Act ofCongress or any regulation ofan executive department, orupon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding intmt. 28 U.S.C. 

### § 149l(a)(l). The Tucker Act is, however, "ajurisdictional statute; it does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages

.... [T]he Act merely confersjurisdiction upon [the United States Court ofFederal Claims] whenever the substantive right exists." 

### United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976) (alterations original). And so, to pursue a substantive right against the United States under the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify and plead a money-mandating constitutional provision, statute, orregulation; an express or implied contract withthe United States; or an illegal exaction ofmoneybythe United States. 

### Cabral v. United States, 317 F. App'x 979, 981 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing 

### Fisher v. United

5

### States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); 

### see also Martinez v. UnitedStates, 333 F.3d 1295, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2003). "[A] statute or regulation is money-mandating forjurisdictionalpurposes ifit 'can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensationfor damages sustained as a result ofthe breach ofthe duties [it] impose[s]. "' 

### Fisher, 402 F.3d at 1173 (quoting 

### United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 217 (1983)). Specifically relevant to this matter, 

### itis well-established that the Tucker Act does not grant the United States Court ofFederal Claims subject-matterjurisdiction to enforce the federal criminal code, orto grant reliefsounding in a writ of

### habeas corpus. Canuto v. UnitedStates, 651 F. App'x 996, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 

### see, e.g., Ledfordv. United States, 297 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The Court also does not possess subject-matterjurisdiction to review orto consider criminal law matters. 

### Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("The comt has nojurisdictionto adjudicate any claims whatsoever under the federal criminal code

...."); 

### Cooper v. UnitedStates, 104 Fed. Cl. 306, 311-12 (2012) (holding that this Court cannotreview criminal matters). 

### Itis also well-established that the Court does not possess subject-matterjurisdiction to consider claims brought under Section 1983 ofthe Civil Rights Act. 

### Osborn v. UnitedStates, 47 Fed. Cl. 224, 232 (2000). The Court also does not possess subject-matterjurisdictionto consider social security benefits or veterans' benefits claims. 

### See 38 U.S.C. 

### § 51 l(a) ("The Secretary [of Veterans Affairs] shall decide all questions oflaw and fact necessary to a decision bythe Secretary under a law that affects the provision ofbenefits by the Secretary to veterans orthe dependents or survivors ofveterans."); 

### Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (stating this Court does not havejurisdiction over claims related to social security benefits); 

### see also Trevino v. UnitedStates, 113 Fed. Cl. 204, 209 (2013), 

### ajf'd, 557 Fed. App'x 995 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (stating United States Court ofAppeals for Veterans Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over claims related to veterans' benefits). In addition, simply citing to a provision ofthe United States Constitutionis notenoughto establish this Court'sjurisdiction over claims based upon that provision. 

### See Calhoun v. United States, 32 Fed. Cl. 400, 405 (1994), 

### ajf'd, 61F.3d918 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (stating "not every claim involving, or invoking, the Constitution necessarily confersjurisdiction on this comt"); 

### see also

6

### Livingston v. Derwinski, 959 F.2d 224, 225 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[T]he mere recitation ofa basis for jurisdiction by either party or a court, is not controlling

...."). Lastly, the United States is the only proper defendant in cases brought in this Court. 

### United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (stating that this Court "is without jurisdiction ofany suit brought against private parties");

### Anderson v. UnitedStates, 117 Fed. Cl. 330, 331 (2014) (stating that this Court is withoutjurisdiction "over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local government entities, or state and local government officials and employees;jurisdiction only extends to suits against the United States itself'). 

### IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS The government has moved to dismiss this matter for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction upon the grounds that: (1) plaintiffs fail to identify a money-mandating source oflaw to establish subject-matterjurisdiction; (2) the Court does not possess subject-matterjurisdiction to consider plaintiffs' civil rights claims; (3) the Court does notpossess subject-matterjurisdiction to consider Mr. Martin's 

### habeas claim; (5) the Court does not possess subject-matterjurisdiction to review plaintiffs' criminal convictions; and (6) the Cornt may not entertain claims against patties other thanthe United States. 

### See Def. Mot. at 5-6; Def. Reply at 2. Plaintiffs counter that the Corntpossesses subject-matterjurisdictionto consider their claims under various constitutional provisions and the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

### See Pis. Resp. at Ex. Bat 1-3. Mr. Duvall and Mr. Cotner have also moved to proceed in this matter 

### informapauperis. See generally Pl. Mot. to Proceed 

### In Forma Pauperis, Feb. 27, 2018, atEntry No. 4; Pl. Mot. to Proceed 

### In Forma Pauperis, Mm. 13, 2018, at Entry No. 6. Forthe reasons discussed below, the most generous reading ofplaintiffs' complaint and ainended complaintmakes clearthat the Court does notpossess subject-matterjurisdiction to consider any ofplaintiffs' claims. Mr. Duvall and Mr. Cotner have, however, shown that they satisfy the statutory requirements to proceed in this matter without paying the Court's filing fee. And so, the Court: (1) 

### GRANTS the government's motion to dismiss; (2) 

### GRANTS plaintiffs' motions to proceed 

### informapauperis; and (3) 

### DISMISSES the complaint. RCFC 12(b)(l).

7

### A. The Court Does Not Possess .Jurisdiction To Consider Plaintiffs' Claims 1. 

### Plaintiffs Fail To Identify A Money-Mandating Source OfLaw As an initial matter, plaintiffs fail to identify a money-mandating source oflawthat would conferjurisdiction upon the Court to consider their claims that they have suffered losses due to (1) the government's alleged "refusal to protect [their] rights" and (2) the government's "breach ofsocial contract, policy, practices, acts ofits agents." Am. Comp!. at 1-2. To establish jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, plaintiffs must identify and plead a money-mandating constitutional provision, statute, or regulation; an express or implied contract withthe United States; or an illegal exaction ofmoneyby the United States. 

### Cabral, 317 F. App'x at 981; 

### see also Martinez, 333 FJd at 1302. But, plaintiffs do not identify a money-mandating federal statute, constitutional provision, or regulation that could form the legal basis ofthese claims in the complaintor the amended complaint. 

### See generally Comp!.; Am. Comp!. And so, the Court must dismiss plaintiffs' claims for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction. 

### See RCFC 12(b)(l). 

### 2. The Court Does Not Possess Jurisdiction To Consider Plaintiffs' Habeas 

### And Criminal Law Claims The Comt is also withoutjurisdictionto considerplaintiffs' 

### habeas and criminal law claims. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that Mr. Maitin has been imprisoned for 35 years "without ever having been arrested, tried, or convicted" and requests that "some federal comt ... hear the merits ofhis federal 2241 habeas." Am. Comp!. at 3. Giventhis, plaintiffs appear to asse1t a 

### habeas corpus claim onbehalfofMr. Martin. The Federal Circuithas long recognized that this Court does notpossess subject-matter jurisdiction to grant reliefsounding in a writ of

### habeas corpus. See, e.g., Ledford, 297 F.3d at 1381. This Court also does nothave the authority to overturn criminal convictions. 

### Humphrey
v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 593, 596 (2002); 

### Cooper, 104 Fed. Cl. at 311-12 (holding that this Court cannot review criminal matters); 

### see also Salman v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 36, 39 (2005) (quoting 

### Dethlefa v. United States, 60 Fed.Cl. 810, 814 (2004)) (stating that this Court does not have the authority "toreview and overturn convictions enteredby a court ofcompetent

8jurisdiction"). And so, the Court must dismiss plaintiffs' habeas and criminal law claims for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction. RCFC 12(b)(1). 3 

### 3. The Court May Not Consider Plaintiffs' Civil Rights, Veterans' Benefits, And Social Security Benefits Claims The Court also may not consider plaintiffs' civil rights, veterans' benefits, and social securitybenefits claims. Inthe amended complaint, plaintiffs appear to assert a claim based upon Section 1983 ofthe Civil Rights Act. Am. Comp!. at 3. But, Congress has committed jurisdiction over such claims to the United States district courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4); Doe v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 794, 798 (2006). And so, the Court must dismiss plaintiffs' civil rights claim for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction. See RCFC 12(b)(1). Plaintiffs' social security and veterans' benefits claims are alsojurisdictionallyprecluded under the TuckerAct. Intheir response to the government's motion to dismiss, plaintiffs appear to assert claims related to social secUl'ity benefits and veterans' benefits. Pis. Resp. at Ex. A at 1. But, it is well-established that the Court does not possess subject-matterjurisdictionto consider claims for social security benefits or veterans' benefits. See 38 U.S.C. § 51 l(a); Trevino, 113 Fed. Cl. at 209; Marcus, 909 F.2d at 1471. And so, the Court must also dismiss plaintiffs' social security and veterans' benefits claims for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction. RCFC 12(b)(l). 

### 4. The Court May Not Consider Plaintiffs' Constitutional Claims And Any Claims Against Parties Other Than The United States Lastly, to the extentthat plaintiffs rely upon the United States Constitutionto bring this action, the Court is also withoutjurisdictionto entertain these constitutional claims because the constitutional provisions that plaintiffs rely upon are not money-mandating. See Fisher, 402 F.3d at 1172. In their response and opposition to the government's motionto dismiss, plaintiffs cite to Article I§§ 9 and 10; Article III§§ 2 and 3; Article IV§§ 2 and 4; and Article VI ofthe United States Constitution to provide ajurisdictional basis for their claims. Pis. Resp. at 1-4.

3 Jn addition, to the extent that plaintiffs seekto asse1t an unjust conviction claim in this matter, they fail to state a plausible claim for relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1495. To bring such a claim here, plaintiffs must allege that either, (1) their convictions have been reversed or set aside by a court; (2) on new hearing or new trial they were found not guilty; or (3) that they have been pardoned. 28 U.S.C. § 2513; Salman, 69 Fed. Cl. at 39; Lott v. UnitedStates, 11 Cl. Ct. 852, 853 (1987). But, plaintiffs make no such allegation. See generally Comp!.; Am. Comp!; RCFC 12(b)(l). 9But, none ofthe constitutional provisions upon which plaintiffs rely are money-mandating. 

### See Olajide v. UnitedStates, No. l6-l594C, 2017 WL 3225048, at *4 (Fed. Cl. July 31, 2017) (discussing Article I§§ 9 and 10); 

### Ivaldy v. UnitedStates, 123 Fed. Cl. 633, 636 (2015), 

### ajj'd, 655 F. App'x 813 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (discussing Article IV§ 2); 

### El v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 707, 709 (2015) (discussing Article VI); 

### Gibson v. UnitedStates, 121 Fed. Cl. 215, 217 (2015) (discussing Article 

### III § 2). Indeed, plaintiffs simply cite to a litany ofprovisions ofthe United States Constitution in their response and opposition without providing any basis for howthese constitutional provisions could establish the Court'sjurisdictionto considerthe claims alleged in the complaint and amended complaint. 

### See Calhoun, 32 Fed. Cl. at 405 (stating "not every claim involving, or invoking, the Constitution necessarily confersjurisdiction on this court"); 

### see also Livingston, 959 F.2d at 225 ("[T]he mere recitation ofa basis forjurisdiction by either party or a court, is not controlling."). Given this, the Court must dismiss plaintiffs' constitutional law claims for want ofsubject-matterjurisdiction. 

### See RCFC 12(b)(l).4 Lastly, the Court is withoutjurisdictionto consider plaintiffs' claims against parties other than the United States. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs appear to asse1t claims against the State ofOklahoma and Oklahoma state officials, as well as individuals. 

### See Am. Comp!. at 1-4. However, thejurisdiction ofthis Cou1t is limited to claims brought against the United States. 

### Sherwood, 312 U.S. at 588; 

### Anderson, 117 Fed. Cl. at 331. And so, the Court must also dismiss plaintiffs' claims against the State ofOklahoma and its government officials, or any private parties for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction. 

### See RCFC 12(b)(l). 

### B. Transfer OfThis Matter Would Be Futile Given the frivolous nature ofplaintiffs' claims, the Court also concludes that a transfer of this matter to a United States district court would be inappropriate. A transfer ofthis matter would be appropriate if: "(!) the transferor court lacksjurisdiction; (2) the action could have

4 To the extentthat plaintiffs rely upon the United Nations' Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights to bring this action, this Comt similarly lacksjurisdiction to ente1tain their claims. See El, 122 Fed. Cl. at 71 0 (2015) (stating this Comt does not havejurisdiction over claims based on the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights absent specific statutory provision stating otherwise). 10

### been brought in the transferee court at the time it was filed; and (3) transfer is in the interest of justice." 

### Zoltek Corp. v. 

### UnitedStates, 672 F.3d 1309, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012); 

### see also 28 U.S.C. § 1631. In this regard, the United States Court ofAppeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the phrase "inthe interest of justice" refers to claims that are "nonfrivolous and as such should be decided on the merits." 

### See Galloway Farms, Inc. v. 

### UnitedStates, 834 F.2d 998, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). And so, the decision to transfer rests withinthe discretion ofthe transferor court, and the court may decline to transfer ifdoing so would be "futile given the weakness ofplaintiffs case on the merits." 

### See Faulkner v. 

### United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 54, 56 (1999) (quoting 

### Siegal v. 

### United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 386, 390-91 (1997)). Inthis case, plaintiffs' claims are fundamentally based upon the alleged right to enforce a previousjudgment ofthis Court. 

### See generally Comp!.; Am. Comp!. But, there canbe no genuine dispute that this Court has notpreviously entered ajudgment in favor ofplaintiffs. To the contrary, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' previous case for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction. 

### See Duvall, 2018 WL 617641 at *3. Given this, transfer ofthis matter to a United States district court would not be in the interest of justice. C. The Court Grants Plaintiffs' Motions To Proceed

### In Forma Pauperis As a final matter, Mr. Duvall and Mr. Cotner have moved to proceed in this matter 

### in formapauperis. See generally Pl. Mot. to Proceed

### In Forma Pauperis, Feb. 27, 2018, at Entry No. 4; Pl. Mot. to Proceed

### In Forma Pauperis, Mar. 13, 2018, atEntry No. 6. This Court may authorize the commencement ofa lawsuit without prepayment offees when a plaintiffsubmits an affidavit including a statement ofall assets, a declaration that plaintiffis unable to pay the fees, and a statement ofthe nature ofthe action and a beliefthat plaintiffis entitled to redress. 

### See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(l); 

### see also 

### id. § 2503(d). When the plaintiffis a prisoner, as is the case here, the plaintiffmust also submit "acertified copy of [his] trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent)

... for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing ofthe complaint." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Inthis matter, Mr. Duvall and Mr. Cotner have both submitted an application for leave to proceed in this matter 

### informapauperis and the necessary statements regarding their respective assets and liabilities, statements ofthe nature ofthis action, and statements that they are "unable to prepaythe costs ofthis action

... because of[their] poverty." 

### See generally Pl. Mot. to
11Proceed

### In Forma Pauperis, Feb. 27, 2018, at Entry No. 4; Pl. Mot. to Proceed

### In Forma Pauperis, Mar. 13, 2018, at Entry No. 6. Mr. Duvall and Mr. Cotner have also submitted copies oftheirrespective trust fund account statements. 

### See Pl. Mot. to Proceed 

### In Forma Pauperis, Feb. 27, 2018, at Entry No. 4; Pl. Mot. to Proceed 

### In Forma Pauperis, Mar. 13, 2018, at Entry No. 6. 5 Because ofthe Court's summary disposition ofthis case uponjurisdictional grounds, and plaintiffs'

### pro se status, the Court finds thatMr. Duvall and Mr. Cotner have satisfied the statutory requirements to proceed 

### informapauperis for the purpose ofresolving the government's motion to dismiss. And so, the Court 

### GRANTS plaintiffs' motions to proceed 

### in formapauperis. 

### V. CONCLUSION In sum, the most generous reading ofplaintiffs' complaint and amended complaint makes clear thatthe Court does not possess subject-matterjurisdictionto consider any ofplaintiffs' claims. Mr. Duvall and Mr. Cotner have, however, shownthat they satisfy the statutory requirements to proceed in this matter without paying the Court's filing fee. And so, for the foregoing reasons, the Court: 1. 

### GRANTS the government's motion to dismiss; 2. 

### GRANTS plaintiffs' motions to proceed 

### informapauperis; and 3. 

### DISMISSES the complaint.

5 Mr. Martin has not filed an application to proceed inJonnapauperis, nor has he submitted a statement ofhis assets or liabilities, or any copy ofhis trust fund account statement. 12

### The Clerk's Office is directed to ENTERfinaljudgment in favor ofthe government, DISMISSING the complaint. Eachparty shall bear its own costs. IT IS SO ORDERED.

13