# i-' :::fi!i-

# ''' Erii 

## .ti d 

### i,

## u",'.



# FILED
JAN 3

### 0 20li U.S. COURT OF GEORGE 

### EDWARD MCDERMOTT, etal.,



### Plaintiffs,

THE I.JNITED 

### STATES, FEDERAL CLAIMS Pro Se

### Complaint; Sua Sponte Dismissal; 

### Lack 

### of Subject 

### Matter Jurisdiction; RCFC I2(hX3).

Defendant.

George Edward 

### McDermott, Georse Edward 

### McDermott Jr', and Patricia J. 

### McDermott, Forest Heights, 

### MD, pfS-Cg.
Sarah Choi, 

### Trial Anomey, Commercial 

### Litigation Branch, 

### Civil Division, United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, 

### DC, for defendant. 

### ORDER OF 

### DISMISSAL
On January 

### 3,2017, 

### plaintiffs, George Edward 

### McDermott and 

### his

### family, filed a 

### complaint in this court appearing 

### pro se. ECF 

### No. 1. 

### Plaintiffs' complaint isstyled as an 

### ..EMERGENCY 

### PETITION FOR

### WRIT OF 

### HABEAS CORPUS 

### AND PROHIBITION TOTHE 

### CLERK'S OFFICE OF

### THE 

### UNITED STATES DISTzuCT COURT D.C. 

### AND 

### MDtl STATE INFEzuOR 

### COURTS." Compl. Plaintiffs filed 

### with their complaint
an application 

### to appear 

### in forma oauperis (IFP 

### Application), seeking permission 

### to proceed 

### without paying the 

### court's

### filing fee. ECF 

### No. 

### 3. Forthe reasons stated below, 

### plaintiffs' complaint is 

### DISMISSED for lack 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction pursuant 

### to RCFC 

### l2(h)(3), and 

### plaintiffs' IFP 

### Application is 

### DENIED. 

# L The

### Court Lacks 

### Jurisdiction Over 

### Plaintiffs' Claims The court reviews 

### plaintiffs' complaint to determinewhether 

### it has

### jurisdiction to hearthis 

### case. See 28 U.S.C. 

### $

### la9l(a)(l); Hebert v. 

### United States, I

### l4 Fed. 

### Cl- 590, 593 (2014) 

### (failure to 

### comply

### with court's

### jurisdictional requirements not excused even 

### for pro se 

### plaintiffs). 

# lntbe @nite! $.tates

# [ourt of

# Jfelerst @lsims
No. 17-09C 

### (Filed: January 30,

### 2017)



## ?01'{ 1.,e00

### 0000 

## c013 h3?a"Subject-matter 

### jurisdiction may be challenged atany time by the parties or by the

court sua

### sponte." Folden v. 

### United States ,3'19 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### 2004). 

### "In deciding whether there is subject-matter 

### jurisdiction, "the allegations stated in the 

### complaint are taken astrue and

### jurisdiction is decided onthe face of the pleadings." Folden, 379 F.3d 

### at 1354 

### (quoting Shearin 

### v. United States 

### ,992 F

### .2d I 195, I 195-96 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### 1993). If the court determines that 

### it does not have subject matter

### jurisdiction, it must dismiss the 

### claim. Rules

### of the 

### United States 

### Court of Federal Claims 

### (RCFC) 12(hX3).
TheTucker 

### Act establishes and 

### limits the

### jurisdiction of the Court 

### of Federal Claims to 

### "any claim against the 

### United States founded either uponthe Constitution, 

### or any

### Act ofCongress or any regulation 

### ofan 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." See28 

### U.S.C. $ 1491 

### (2012). With limited exceptions, this court has

### authority to "issue judgments 

### for money against the 

### United States 

### only when they are grounded 

### in acontract, a money-mandating statute, or thetakings clause of the 

### Fifth Amendment." Drake v. Fitzwater, 

### No. 14-408C,2015

### WL 1883766, at

## *l (Fed. 

### Cl. 

### Apr.23,2015) (citing United States

### v. Testan,424 

### U.5.392,397-98 (1976)). Although the Tucker 

### Act waives the sovereign 

### immunity necessary

### for a

### plaintiff to suethe 

### United States 

### for money damages, 

### united states v. 

### Mitchell,463 

### u.s. 206,212 (1983), 

### it does not confer any substantive rights upon a

### plaintiff, Testan, 424 U.S. at

### 398. Therefore, a 

### plaintiff must 

### "identif, asubstantive 

### right for money damages against the 

### United States separate 

### from theTucker 

### Act 

### itself' for the court to exercise

### jurisdiction over aclaim. Todd v. 

### United States, 386 

### F.3d 1091, 1094 (Fed. 

### Cir.

### 2004). The substantive source

## of law allegedly 

### violated must 

### "'fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal 

### Government."' United States v. Navaio 

### Nation, 556 U.S. 

### 287,290 (2009) (quoting Testan ,424 U .5. at400). 

### Although 

### plaintiffs 

### identiff damages in the amount 

### of "$35+ 

### million dollars" on the cover sheet of 

### their complaint, ECF 

### No. 1- 1,the 

### complaint itself does not request

## - or set

### forth any legal basis

## for- an award of monetary damages. Instead, 

### plaintiffs request an 

### injunction from this court against the U.S. 

### District Courtfor the 

### District of Columbia and 

### Maryland state court

## - which 

### plaintiffs have characterized as

### "inferior courts"

## - for the 

### "[d]enial of access

### to courts 

### unjustly." Cover Sheet, ECF 

### No. 1-L This court cannot grant such 

### relief. Although the Court 

### ofFederal Claims has the authority 

### to award 

### injunctive relief pursuant to theTucker 

### Act, 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1491(bX2), and under the guidance provided by RCFC 65(d), this 

### relief is a 

### "drastic and 

### extraordinary" remedy that isavailable 

### only in certain types 

### of cases. 

### Intel Com. 

### v. 

### ULSI Svs.Tech.. 

### Inc.,995F.2d 1566, 

### 1568(Fed.Cir. 1993);seealsoMazurekv.Armstrong, 520U.S.968,972 (1997). And before a request 

### for injunctive 

### relief can be evaluated by the court, 

### plaintiffs must

### first identifu asubstantive 

### right that invokes the 

### court's 

### limited jurisdiction to hear claims against the 

### United States 

### for 

### money.Thomdike v. 

### UnitedStates, 72 Fed. 

### Cl. 580, 583 (2006) 

### (citing Rice

### v. United States, 31 Fed. 

### Cl. 156, 164

(1994), 

### affd, 48 

### F.3d 1236 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995)); RCFC 

### 65. In other words, the court does not have

### jurisdiction over claims in 

### which the sole 

### reliefsought is a

### action. Id. 

### Additionally, the 

### court's 

### ability to 

### provide injunctive 

### relief does not extend to 

### compelling other courtsto eithertake or 

### refrain

### fiom taking a

### particular 

### action. Ramirez 

### v. United States, 239 Fed.

### Appx. 581, 582 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2007) 

### (pfq se

### claim asserting that state and federal courts deprived 

### plaintiff of due process were found to have been 

### properly dismissed

### for lack 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction holding that the court "cannot grant equitable 

### relief such as an 

### injunction" absent specific circumstances). 

### Plaintiffs also make 

### multiple statements in 

### their complaint that refer to the U.S. 

### District Courtfor the 

### District of Columbia and 

### Maryland state courts as

### "lower" courts. Compl., 

### passim. The court construes these statements

### to suggest that 

### plaintiffs seek

### to challenge the decisions 

### ofthose courts 

### here. The court, however, cannot do

### so. Colbert 

### v. United States,6IT F.

### App'x 981, 983 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2015) 

### ("The [U.S. Court of Federal 

### Claims] may not substantively 

### review the

### wisdom of earlier 

### district court 

### orders."). 

### Nor could the U.S. Court 

### of Federal Claims intervene 

### in any proceeding before those courts as requested by 

### plaintiffs. Ramirez, 239 Fed.

### Appx. 581. 

### Plaintiffs seek 

### further 

### relieffor an alleged

### "civil rights 

### violation." Compl. 

### 2. It is 

### "well settled," however, that this court does not have

### jurisdiction over

### civil rights claims



## - whether arising under 42 

### U.S.C. $

## l98l or $ 1983. Wildman v. United States, 28 Fed. 

### Cl. 494, 495 

### (1993);

### Griffith v. 

### United States, 

### No. 14-793C, 2015

### WL 1383959, at

### *2 (Fed. 

### Cl. 

### Mar.20,2015); Ramirez,239Fed. Appx. 581; Osborn 

### v. United States,47 

### Fed. 

### cr. 224,232 (2000). 

### Plaintiffs press claims that cannot be heard by this 

### court. Accordingly, 

### plaintiffs' complaint is 

### DISMISSED for lack 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction under 

### RCFC 

### l2(hx3). 

# II. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Proceed 

### In Forma Pauperis Pursuant to 28 

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

### "court of the 

### United States" is permitted to

### waive 

### filing fees and security under certain 

### circumstances.r See 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1915(a)(1); see also Hayes 

### v. United states, 

## 7l Fed.

### cl. 366,366

## - 67 (2006) 

### (concludingthat $ 1915(a)(1) applies to both prisoners and non-prisoners 

### alike). As explained by the website maintained by the court regarding p1s-!e 

### information, 

### "in forma pauperis" is defined as 

### "[p]ermission to sue 

### without prepayment 

### offees, given by the court to a 

# I The Court 

### ofFederal Claims, 

### while not generally considered to be a 

### "court 

### ofthe United States" 

### within the meaning of

### Title 28 the 

### United States Code, is deemedto be a 

### "court of the 

### United States" for purposes 

### of this statute, and thus has

### jurisdiction to grant 

### or deny IFP 

### applications. See 28 U.S.C. $2503(d) (deeming the Court of Federal Claims to be 

### "a court 

### of the 

### United States" 

### for the purposes 

### of 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1915).person 

### who does not have 

### financial means to

### pay." Pro Se 

### Information,

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/pro-se-information (last

### visited Jan. 

### 26,2017). Plaintiffs wishing to proceed 

### in forma pauperis must submit an

### affidavit that includes astatement 

### of their assets, declares 

### their 

### inability to pay the fees or give the security, and describes the nature 

### of their action and the basis

### for the redress 

### sought. 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 

### l9l5(a)(1).
Under 

### ordinary circumstances, "the threshold 

### for a

### motion to proceed 

### in forma pauperis is not 

### high: [t]he statute requires 

### [simply] that the applicant be 'unable to pay suchfees.' 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915(a)(1). To be 'unable to pay such fees' means that paying such fees

### would constitute a serious hardship onthe

### plaintiff." Fiebelkom v. 

### United States, 77 Fed.

### Cl. 59, 62 

### (2007); see also 

### Moore v. 

### United States, 93 Fed.

### Cl.

## 4ll, 414

# - 15 (2010). 

### Although 

### plaintiffs' IFP application is 

### largely 

### illegible, it does appear that 

### plaintiffs derive income 

### from 

### "[r]ent payments, interest or 

### dividends," as

### well as ownership 

### of other assets. IFP 

### Application 

## 2. Moreover, 

### it appears that 

### Mr. George 

### McDermott isthe 

### only 

### plaintiff to have contributed 

### information for the IFP

### Application. But, the court cannot discem 

### from the 

### information provided thevalue

### ofplaintiffs' assets. 

### Nor can the court assess 

### plaintiffs' overall

### ability to pay the

### filing feeor whether the fee 

### would constitute aserious hardship onthe 

### plaintiffs. Therefore, 

### without more, the court 

### DENIES 

### plaintiffs' motion for leaveto proceed 

### in forma pauneris. 

# m. Plaintiffs' Other Correspondence Shall Be Retumed 

### Unfiled On January 

### 5,2017 and January 

### 23,2017, the 

### Clerk

### ofCourt received additional correspondence 

### from 

### plaintiffs. In light of the 

### court's determination herein and because there is no 

### provision in the 

### court's rules for the

### filing of the documents submitted by 

### plaintiffs, the 

### Clerk of Court isdirected 

### to 

### return these 

### documents 

### to 

### plaintiffs unfiled. 

# IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set

### forth above, the 

### Clerk

### ofCourt shall 

### enterjudgment 

### for defendant. Once

### judgment is enteredthis matter is considered 

### closed. The

### Clerk's 

### Office isdirectedto 

### retum any future 

### filings not in compliance 

### with this 

### court's rules to 

### plaintiff, unfiled, without further order. 

### IT IS SO

### ORDERED. 

## \.
ChiefJudge