# oRlgll,|At

llr tllt 

# @nftr[ $rtuttg

# tsurt of

# feltrut @tsimg
No. 14-66C (Filed: 

### May 12.2014)

,( )t<* * * :t* * * * * r( :t r( +* * r!* d.t( t( r<*t :1.* * * + + :f i. * :*,1.*

* 

### CHRISTOPHERSCOTTBARKSDALE, * 

### Plaintiff,

THE 

### IINITED STATES,
Defendant. ,r*,t

### **+++t(******'t 't:+,t ,t :t !t + + ,t* * * {< :* ;** r.* * {<* Christopher Scott Barksdale, appearing

### pro se, Cleveland, Ohio. Benjamin 

### Mark Moss,

### with whom were Stuart F. Delery, Assistant 

### Attomey General, Robert E. 

### Kirschman, 

### Jr., Director, and

## Kirk T. Manhardt, Assistant 

### Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

### Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendant. OPINION 

### AND ORDER WHEELER, Judge. 

### Plaintiff Christopher Barksdale filed a

### pro se complaint 

### in this Court on January 

### 27,2014. Mr. Barksdale's 

### claim stems from a decision 

### of the United States 

### District Court 

### for the Northern 

### District 

### of 

### Ohio. In that case, 

### Mr. Barksdale 

### was challenging 

### a foreclosure 

### action, and the 

### District Court dismissed 

### Mr. Barksdale's case after determining that his suit was 

### frivolous. That decision was appealed to the United States Court

### of Appealsfor the Sixth 

### Circuit, but the appeal was dismissed

### for failure to prosecute. Now, 

### Mr. Barksdale asksthis Court to award $32,300,000 

### in damages as

### well as injunctive 

### relief compelling the Sixth 

### Circuit and the 

### District Court for the Northern 

### District 

### of Ohio 

### to establish changes 

### in policies, procedures, and

### training

### to prevent such actions, asalleged in the complaint, from occurring in the future. On 

### March 14,2014, the Government 

### filed a motion 

### to dismiss 

### Mr. Barksdale's complaint 

### for lack 

### of subject matter 

### jurisdiction pursuant to 

### Rule 

### l2(b)(l) of the Rules 

### of the U.S. Court

### of Federal Claims 

### ("RCFC") and

### for failure 

### to state a claim under 

### Rule 12(bX6). The motion has been

### fully briefed. For the reasons stated below the Government's motion is GRANTED. 

## FILED

lt,|AY 

### 12 2014 U.S.E,OURTff FEDERALCLANBackground

In 2010, 

### Mr. Barksdale 

### filed suit in the Northern 

### District of Ohio alleging that the State

### of Ohio committed fraud when the State adjudicated aforeclosure action against 

### Mr. Barksdale's deceased 

### mother. After filing his complaint, 

### Mr. Barksdale 

### petitioned 

### for in

### forma pauperis 

### status.r The 

### District Court reviewed his complaint, determined 

### it was

### frivolous, and dismissed the case pursuant 

### to 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 

### l9l5(eX2)(B). The Court also denied post-judgment motions 

### for relief fromjudgment and 

### recusal. 

### Mr. Barksdale appealed

### to the Sixth Circuit, 

### but this appeal was dismissedfor want ofprosecution. 

### Now, 

### Mr. Barksdale has 

### filed a suit 

### in this Court challenging 

### the dismissal

### of his case under $ 1915(e). According to 

### Mr. Barksdale $ 1915(e) discriminates against 

### African Americans. 

### Compl. 

### 13. Furthermore, 

### Mr. Barksdale argues that the

### judicial system 

### is liable for a breach

### of contract 

### ofthe International Covenant on 

### Civil and Political Rishts and a breach of contract 

### ofthe judicial oath 

### ofoffice. Analysis In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court must acceptthe allegations in the complaint as true, drawing 

### all reasonable inferences in the 

### plaintifls favor. Ainslie v. United States, 355 F.3d 1371, 1373 (Fed. 

### Cir.2004) (citing Godwin

### v. United States,338 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 

### 2003)). Though

### pro se litigants are held to "less stringent standardsthanformal pleadings drafted 

### by lawyers," failures 

### to comply 

### with the Court's

### jurisdictional requirements are 

### not excused. Hampel

### v. United States,97 Fed. 

### Cl.235,237 (201l) (quoting Estelle

### v. Gamble, 429 

### U.5.97, 106 

### (1976). Where subject matter 

### jurisdiction 

### is challenged, 

### the 

### plaintiff must establish the Court's

### jurisdiction by a preponderance 

### of the 

### evidence. Revnolds 

### v. 

### Army 

### & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F .2d 7

### 46,748 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1988). This Court's

### jurisdiction is established by theTucker

### Act. 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1491 

### (2006). To invoke 

### jurisdiction under the Tucker 

### Act, a 

### plaintiff must 

### point

### to a substantive 

### right 

### to money damages against the United States. Hamlet v. United States, 63 F.3d 1097, 1101 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995). Such aclaim can be founded 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, 

### or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in

### tort." 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1491 

### (2006). Mr. Barksdale hasfailedto meet the burden of establishing 

### jurisdiction for the 

### following four reasons.

IThe federal informa pauperis statute was enacted to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful accessto the federal courts. However, Congress recognized that litigants whose filing fees are assumed by the public lack an economic incentive to refrainfrom filing frivolous lawsuits. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,324 (1989). As such, 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(e)(2)(B) requires that United States District Courts dismiss cases which areflivolous or malicious; whichfail to state actionable claims; and which seek monetary reliefagainst adefendant who is immune from such 

### relief. )

### First, 

### he raises

## tort claims such 

### as fraudulent inducement 

### and misrepresentation.

However, 

### it is

### well settled 

### law thatthis Court lacks

### jurisdiction under the Tucker 

### Actto hear claims against the 

### United States "sounding 

### in

### tort." See. e.g., Brown 

### v. United States, 105 F.3d 

### 621,623 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1997) 

### (citing 28 

### U.S.C.

### $ l49l(a); Keene 

### Com.

### v. United States, 508 U.S. 

### 200,2t4 (1993). Second, 

### Mr. Barksdale alleges 

### thatthe Govemment 

### committed 

### criminal acts 

### such as conspiracy, 

### perjury, and

### violations 

### of the Sherman

### Antitrust

## Act. However, 

### this Court lacks 

### jurisdiction to adjudicate claims underthe federal criminal code. Joshua v. United States, 

### l7 F.3d 378,379 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994). Third, 

### Mr. Barksdale's constitutional claims 

### fail because he cites constitutional provisions 

### that are 

### not money-mandating. 

### He raises 

### Constitutional claims under 

### the Preamble

### to the 

### Constitution 

### along

### with the First, Fourth, Seventh, 

### Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, 

### and Thirteenth Amendments. 

### Cf. Moden

### v. United States, 404 F.3d 1335, 1341 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2005) (the 

### portion

### of the 

### Fifth Amendment

### which prohibits 

### the taking 

## of private property

### for a public purpose mandates the payment 

### of money 

### within the meaning 

### of theTucker 

### Act). He also brings claims under the 

### Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments sounding in equal protection and due process. These Constitutional provisions are not money-mandating and therefore

### fail to raise a

### fair inference 

### of jurisdiction. Fourth, 

### the remainder 

### of Mr. Barksdale's claims arise under various authorities

### that are outside 

### the subject matter

### jurisdiction 

### of the Court

### of Federal 

### Claims. These claims relate to 

### Ohio's statutory and constitutional provisions; the International Covenant on 

### Civil and Political 

### Rights; 

### the Administrative Procedures 

### Act; and 

### the Rules

### of Decision

## Act. None 

### of these authorities establishes 

### a private 

### right

### of action

### for money damages against 

### the 

### United States creating subject matter

### jurisdiction inthis case. Conclusion The Court does 

### not have subject matter

### jurisdiction over any

### of Mr. Barksdale's claims. Therefore, Defendant's 

### motion

### to dismiss under 

### Rule 12(bXl) is GRANTED, and 

### the clerk is instructed to DISMISS the complaintwithout 

### prejudice. Becausethe Court has determined that 

### it must dismiss

### the case pursuant 

### to Rule 12(b)(l), 

## it does 

### not need

### to address Defendant's altemative ground for dismissal under Rule 12(bX6). 

### IT IS SO ORDERED. 

# fl*eLm^
THOMAS C.

### WMELER Judge