# oRl0lNAt

llntW @nitrU 

# 9,tutts 6,ourt of

# /elrrs[ @Iaims 

# FILED No. l3-822C (Filed: October 30,2013) ** ***** ****** +:i* **,i**i(,t **** *+* ***:t*,f * 

### SHATINTELL 

# SMITH, {.



### Plaintiff, Pro Se 

### Plaintiff; Dismissal for Lack 

## of Jurisdiction; Application to Proceed 

### In Forma Pauoeris 

### THE UNITED STATES,



# Defendant. *
:i* *** * * ** * * ** * * **t :** * :t :** {.** * ** * ** * **

### *
Shauntell Smith, Washington, DC, 

## gq se. 

### ORDER 

### DISMISSING CASE 

### SWEENEY, Judge
On October 

### 21,2013, 

### plaintiffin the above-captioned case, appearing p1q se,

### filed a 

### complaint and an

### application to proceed 

### in forma 

### oauperis. In her 

### complaint, 

### plaintiff provides a laundry 

### list of defendants and claims, 

### but does not set

### forth any facts

### explaining how those defendants 

### purportedly injured 

### her. Specifically, 

### plaintiff names as defendants the 

### United States Department 

### oftheTreasury; the Social Security 

### Administration; the 

### United States Postal Service; and a

### variety

### ofstate agencies, private companies, private entities, and 

### individuals. And, 

### plaintiff lists the

### following claims against these agencies, entities, and 

### individuals: 

## (l) hacking her accounts and 

### electronically altering her 

### information; (2)

### violating her 

### privacy; (3)forcing a

### belief system on people under the pretense 

### ofhelping them; (4) harassment; 

### (5) aggressively pursuing and charging certain, unspecified 

### individuals; (6) immoral acts unbecoming 

### to government employees; (7)

### judicial negligence and 

### misconduct;' (8) selective prosecution; (9) 

### manipulating the minds 

### of ordinary citizens 

### who rue unaware 

### oftheir legal 

### rights; (10)

### failing to protect 

### mentally 

### ill individuals; (1

### l) the

### failure 

### of"core service agencies" 

### to assist others as required; and ( I2) 

### altering birth records.
The court lacks

### jurisdiction to entertain 

### plaintiffs complaint. As an 

### initial matter, 

### it is 

### well settled thatthe 

### United States is the 

### only proper defendant 

### in the 

### united States 

### court 

### of Federal 

### Claims 

### ("Court of Federal

### Claims"). See 28 U.S.C. 

### g 1a91(a)(l) (providing that rhe 

### court of Federal

### claims has

### jurisdiction over claims against the 

### united states); R. 

### u.s. ct. Fed. 

### OcT 3

### 0 2013 

# ,8ffPieh%

I 

### Plaintiffdoes not name 

### anyjudicial officers as defendants 

### in her 

### complaint. 

### Case 1:13-cv-00822-MMS Document 4 Filed 10/30/13 Page 1 of 3

### Cl. l0(a) (requiring thatthe 

### United States be designated asthe defendant in the Court 

### ofFederal

Claims); Stephenson v. 

### United States, 58 Fed. 

### Cl. 186, 190 (2003) 

### ("[Tjhe only proper defendant 

### for any matter before this court is the 

### United States, not its 

### officers, nor any other 

### individual."). Indeed, 

### thejurisdiction 

### ofthe Court 

### of Federal Claims 

### "is confined 

### to the 

### rendition 

### ofmoney judgments 

### in suits brought 

### for that 

### reliefagainst the 

### United States,

. . .and 

### if the 

### reliefsought is against others thanthe 

### United States, the suit astothem must be ignored as beyond the 

### jurisdiction 

### ofthe court." United States 

### v. Sherwood,312 U.S. 

### 584,588 

### (1941). Accordingly, the 

### court lacks

### jurisdiction over 

### plaintiffs claims against 

### all parties other than the 

### United States. Moreover, the

### ability ofthe Court 

### of Federal Claims 

### to entertain suits against the 

### United States is 

### limited. "The United States, assovereign, is immune 

### from suit save as 

### it consents 

### to be 

### sued." Sherwood, 312 U.S. at

### 586. The 

### waiver 

### of immunity "cannot be 

### implied but must be 

### unequivocally expressed." United States v. 

### Kine,395 U.S. 

### 1,4(1969). The

### TuckerAct, the 

### principal statute 

### goveming the

### jurisdiction ofthis court, waives sovereign 

### immunity for claims against the 

### United States, not sounding in 

### tort, that arefounded upon the 

### United States 

### Constitution, afederal statute or regulation, or an express 

### or implied contract 

### with the 

### United States. 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 1a9l(a)(1) 

### (2006). However, the Tucker 

### Act is merely 

### ajurisdictional statute and "does not create any substantive 

### right enforceable against the 

### United States

### for money 

### damages." United States v.

### Testan,424U.5.392,398 (1976). Instead, the substantive 

### right must appear 

### in another source 

### of law, such as a "money-mandating 

### constitutional provision, statute or regulation that has been 

### violated, or an express 

### or implied contract 

### with the 

### United States." Loveladies Harbor. Inc. v. 

### United States,27 

### F.3d 1545,1554 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994) (en banc). 

### Plaintiffdoes not allege any claims based on a contract

### with the 

### United States or a moneymandating 

### constitutional provision, federal statute, or federal 

### regulation. Accordingly, the

### court lacks

### jurisdiction to entertain 

### plaintiffs claims.
As noted above, 

### plaintifffiled, concurrent 

### with her 

### complaint, an

### application to proceed 

### informa oauperis. Pursuant 

### to 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915, courts

### of the 

### United States are permitted 

### to waive

### filing fees and security under certain circumstances.2 See 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 1915(a)(l); see also Hayes 

### v. United States, 71 Fed. 

### CI.366,366-67 (2006) 

### (concluding that 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915(a)(1) applies to both prisoners and nonprisoners 

### alike). Plaintiffs wishing to proceed 

### in forma pauoeris must submit an

### affidavit that lists 

### all

### oftheir assets, declares thatthey are unable 

### to pay the fees 

### or give the security, and states the nature

### of the action and 

### their 

### beliefthat they are entitled to


# ' While the Court 

### of Federal

### Claims is not generally consideredto be a 

### "court of the 

### United States" 

### within the meaning 

### of

### title twenty-eight ofthe 

### United States Code, the court has 

### jurisdiction to grant or deny applications to proceed 

### in forma 

### pggpgfg. See 28 

### U.S.C. g2503(d) (deeming the

### court ofFederal claims to be "a court 

### ofthe united States" 

### for the purposes 

### of28 U.S.C. $ 1915); seealso Matthews 

### v. United States,72 Fed. CL.274,277 -79 

### (2006) (recognizing that Congress enacted the 

### Court ofFederal Claims Technical and Procedural Improvements 

### Act 

### of 1992, 

### authorizingthe court to, among otherthings, adjudicate applications to proceed 

### informa peltpgru pursuant 

### to 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915).

.'t



### Case 1:13-cv-00822-MMS Document 4 Filed 10/30/13 Page 2 of 3

### redress. 28 

### U,S.C. $

## l9l5(aXl). Here, 

### plaintiffhas satisfied 

### all

### th€erequirements.



### Accordingly, the court grants 

## plaintif s

### application and waives her

### filing fee. 

### ln sum, the court 

### GRANTS 

### plaintiffs application to proceed 

### in forma pgUperi! and 

### DISMISSES 

### plaintiffs oomplaintfor lack 

### ofjurisdiction. The 

### clerk is directed

### to enter 

### judgnent accordingly. 

### ITISSOORDERED.

-J

### Case 1:13-cv-00822-MMS Document 4 Filed 10/30/13 Page 3 of 3