# ORHffi$NAI

rJrtW @nfreu 

# sttutts @owt of

# felersl

# HIEO

,,"J1.11;f!3l,o,o

RENIECE 

### L.W. 

### KABANDO, AUG

# 2I Zon 

## -US. COURT OF FEDERAI 28 

### u.s.c. g

## l4el.ruckerA"rs$JUls Matter 

### Jurisdiction. Rules 

### of the Court 

## of Federal

### Claims 12(b)(1), 

### Moneymandating, 

### District Court Jurisdiction THE TINITED STATES OF

### AMERICA, Defendant.

Reniece 

### L.W. Kabando, Woodbridge,

### VA, Plaintiff, 

### pro se. 

### Martin M. Tomlinson, 

### Commercial 

### Litigation Branch, 

### Civil Division, United States Department 

### of Justice, 

### Washinglon, D.C., 

### for defendant. 

### With him were Stuart 

### F. 

### Delery, Assistant 

### Attomey General, Robert E. Kirschman, -Ir., 

### Director, Steven 

### J. Gillingham, Assistant 

### Director. 

### OPINION AND ORDER On 

### July 1,2014, 

### plaintiff, Reniece 

### L.W. Kabando, appearing p1q se,

### frled a

### complaint, an application to proceed 

### in forma pggpggig, and an ex palte 

### motion for declaratory and 

### injunctive 

### relief.' Plaintiff contends that she is entitled 

### to $99,333,720,368,547,800.00 

### from the government pursuant

### to 18 

### U.S.C. $$ 1831-1839 

### (2012) and 15 

### U.S.C. $$ 631-657s (2012), and 15 U.S.C. g 

### 6aa(gX1) because she is the sole owner 

### ofa small business concem and is also a 

### socially and 

### economically disadvantaged woman and 

### minority. On 

### July 15, 2014, 

### plaintifffiled a 

### motion for leave 

### to

### file an order

### to show cause as

### to 

### "why the 

### United States is now 

### refusing and

### why the 

### court should 

### not grant the

### official order as 

### previously mandated 

### by Congress" and expressed her hope that "as Congress 

### officially orders 

### to do something, the Court 

### of Federal Claims 

### will order

### to dothe

### same." Mot.for Leave 

### to File Proposed Order 

### to Show Cause, ECF 

### No.5.

' Plaintiff s

### complaint in 

### this action is

### virtually identicalto an earlier 

### complaint 

### filed by

### plaintiff before Judge Margaret 

### M. Sweeney 

### of this 

### court. Kabando 

### v. United States, 

### No. l4-286C,2014 U.S. Claims 

### LEXIS 265, 2014

### WL 1577047 (Fed. 

### Cl.

### April 21,

### 2014). That case was dismissed 

### for lack 

### ofjurisdiction and

### plaintiff s

### motion for reconsideration 

### ofthe order 

### of dismissal was denied. 

### Plaintiff,The government has moved 

### to dismiss the case 

### for lack 

### ofsubject matter 

### jurisdiction.2

For the reasons discussed 

### below, the Court concludes that 

### it lacks

### jurisdiction to address 

### plaintiffs claims. Accordingly, the 

### govemment's motion to dismiss is 

### GRANTED. The 

### Court 

### ofFederal Claims has

### jurisdiction under the 

### Tucker Act to hear 

### "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." 28 U.S.C. $ 

### la91(a)(1) 

### (2012), The 

### Tucker

### Act waives the sovereign 

### immunity of the 

### United States to

### allow a suit 

### for money damages, 

### United States v. 

### Mitchell,463 U.S.206,212 (1983), 

### but 

### it does not confer any substantive 

### rights. United States v.

### Testan,424U.5.392,398 (1976). Therefore, a 

### plaintiffseeking to invoke the 

### court's TuckerAct

### jurisdiction must 

### identify an independent source

### ofa substantive 

### right to money damages 

### from the 

### United States arising out

### ofa contract, statute, 

### regulation or 

### constitutional 

### provision. Jan's 

### Helicopter Serv.. Inc. 

### v. Fed.

### Aviation Admin., 525 

### F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2008). 

### "Not every 

### claim invoking the 

### Constitution, afederal statute, 

### or a 

### regulation is cognizable under the 

### Tucker

### Act." Mitchell, 463 U.S. at

### 216. "[T]he claimant must demonstrate that the source 

### of substantive law he relies upon 'can 

### fairly be interpreted as mandating 

### compensationbytheFederalGovemmentforthedamagessustained."'Id.at216-17(1983) (quoting Testan, 424 U.S. at

### 400). While p1q se

### plaintiffs' pleadings are held to "less stringent standards than 

### formal pleadings drafted 

### by lawyers," (Haines 

### v. 

### Kemer,404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)), even 

### pro se

### plaintiffs must persuade the Court that

### jurisdictional requirements have been 

### met. Bemard v. 

### United States, 59 Fed. 

### Cl. 497, 500 (2004), 

### aff d,98 F.

### App'x 860 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### 2004). 

### Ifthe statute upon 

### which 

### plaintiff s

### claim rests is 

### not money-mandating, the court must dismiss the action because 

### "the absence

### ofa money-mandating source 

### [is] fatal 

### to the 

### court's 

### jurisdiction underthe

### Tucker

### Act." Fisherv. United 

### States,402F.3d1167,1173 (2005). Reading

### plaintiff s

### complaint in the 

### light most favorable to the 

### plaintiff, the 

### complaint fails to plead any 

### claims sufficient to invoke the

### jurisdiction ofthe 

### Court of Federal 

### Claims. The statutes 

### identified by

## plaintiff-l8 U.S.C. $$ 1831-1839, 15 

### U.S.C. $$ 631- 657s, and 

### l5 U.S.C. $

### 64a(g)(1)-are not 

### money-mandating. The 

### Economic Espionage 

### Act, 18 

### U.S.C. $$ 1831- 1839, is a

### criminal statute that 

### prohibits theft oftrade secrets and applies 

### toforeign conduct

# if "an act in furtherance 

### of the offense was

### committed in the 

### United 

### States." 

### i8 U.S.C. $ 1837. The Small Business 

### Act, 

### l5 U.S.C. $ 631-657s, states Congress' small business 

### policy and outlines a

### framework 

### for small businesses to compete

### for govemment 

### contracts. These statutes, readtogether or alone, cannot be

### fairly interpreted 

### to mandate the payment 

### ofmoney, and consequently 

### this Court lacks

### jurisdiction to consider

### plaintiffs claims. 

### Plaintiff also 

### cites 15 

### U.S.C. $$ 

### l-2, the Sherman 

### Antitrust 

### Act. The 

### Court does not have 

### jurisdiction over claims arising under the Sherman 

### Antitrust 

## Act. l5 U.S.C. $ 4 

### ("The several 

### district courts

. . .are hereby invested 

### with

### jurisdiction to prevent and restrain 

### violations 

### of sections 1

### to 7 

### of this

### title."). See also 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1337(a) (stating thatthe 

### district courts have

2The 

### plaintiffhas not responded 

### to the 

### motion to dismiss or requested an extension 

### of time to do so.

### original

### jurisdiction over 

### "any 

### civil action or proceeding arising under any

### Act 

### of Congress

regulating commerce or 

### protecting trade and commerce against 

### restaints and 

### monopolies"); Hufford v. United States, 87 Fed. 

### Cl.696,703 (2009) 

### (holding that 

### violations 

### ofthe Sherman 

### Antitrust 

### Act axe

### within the exclusive 

### jurisdiction of the 

### district courts). 

### Plaintiff also 

### filed a request 

### to proceed 

### in forma 

### oauperis. To proceed 

### in forma pauperis, a

### plaintiffmust submit an

### affidavit that includes a 

### list of 

### all oftheir assets, a declaration that

### they are unable 

### to pay the fees 

### or give the security 

### for an attomey, and a statement 

### ofthe nature 

## of theiractionandtheirbeliefthattheyareentitledtojudgment.28U.S.C.$1915(aX1)(2012). Here, 

### plaintiff satisfied these requirements, and the Court therefore grants her 

### application to proceed 

### in forma pauperis.
Forthe reasons stated above, the Court 

### GRANTS 

### plaintiff s

### motion to proceed 

### in forma pauperis and 

### DISMISSES 

### plaintiff s

### complaint for lack of

### jurisdiction. PlaintifP s

### motion 

### for leave 

### to

### file an order 

### for the defendant 

### to show cause is 

### DENIED AS 

### MOOT. The 

### Clerk ofthe Court is directed 

### to enter

### judgnent accordingly. The 

### Clerk 

### ofthe Court shall 

### retum to 

### plaintiff the

### following documents: "Response 

### to Defendant's 

### 'No' Answer tothe 

### 'Motion For Leave

### to File Proposed Order 

### to Show 

### Cause"' and 

### "Motion for Leave

### to File Response 

### to Defendant's 

### 'No' Answer for the 

### 'Motion for Leave 

### to File In Forma 

### Pauperis,"' both received on

### August

### 25,2014 

### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED.

ELAINE D. 

### KAPLAN Judge