ORI$INAt

lJntbt @nitpb $rtutts @ourt of fr[rrul @lsfmg

FILED

No. 16-1436C

(Filed: December 1, 2016)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

TAYE LAMONTE ELLEBY.

Pro Se Plaintiff,

THE LINITED STATES,

t)Ec - r 2015

U.S. COURT OF

FEDERAL CLAIMS

Pro Se Complaint; RCFC 12(hX3);

Lack of Subiect Matter Jurisdiction

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The court is in receipt ofthe complaint filed on October 31,2016 by pro se

plaintiff Taye L. Elleby, who is incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility in

Romulus, New York. In addition, on November 16,2016, Mr. Elleby filed a',Proof of

Claim Truth Affidavit Amicus Curiae," subtitled "Memorandum Motion of Honor." in

support of his claims.

While the caption of Mr. Elleby's November 16,2016 filing includes "USA" as

defendant, the caption of the complaint and all of the claims in Mr. Elleby's filings

describe the defendants in this case as state officials or other individuals "who all work at

the [New York state] courts." See, e.g., Compl. 2, 16. The basis of Mr. Elleby's

complaint and his November 16,2016 filing is that the state court and the individuals

involved in his criminal case lacked authority or conspired against him. Mr. Elleby

claims that he "has been illegally held in involuntary servitude as a result ofa debt

incurred after he was duped into believing that he was going to civil court as a result of

being accused of sex trafficking and promoting prostitution." Compl. l. Mr. Elleby also

states that he provided the state court and the united States Treasury with "large amounts

of money" in the form of promissory notes to pay the alleged debt. Compl. 3. Mr. Elleby

cites the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause and part of the Federal rort

Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. g 2679, in support of his clairn that he should be immediately

released and paid $900 million in compensation for his allegedly unjust conviction and

detention. compl. 15-16. In his Novemb er 16,2016 filing, Mr. Elleby also argues rhat
he is entitled to relief on the grounds that his criminal conviction violates the Thirteenth

Amendment's prohibition against slavery, that none of the attorneys involved in his

criminal case were qualified, that his conviction was due to fraud and that he was

deprived of his right under the Sixth Amendment and federal and state statutes to know

the nature of the case against him, and that th€ state court lacked jurisdiction over him as

a "sovereign American."

Pursuant to Rule l2(h)(3) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims, "[i]f the

court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must

dismiss the action." A plaintiffhas the burden of establishing the court's subject matter

jurisdiction by a preponderance ofthe evidence. See Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters,

Inc. v. United Stales, 805 F.3d 1082, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citingBrandt v. United

States,Tl0 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv.,

846F.2d746,748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Although pro se plaintiffs are held to less stringent

pleading standards, they must still demonstrate that the court has jurisdiction to hear their

claims. See Matthews v. United States, 750 F.3d 1320,1322 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation

omitted).

The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. $ la91(a)(l), grants this court jurisdiction to hear "any

claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of

Congress 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 nol

sounding in tort."

This court lacks jurisdiction over claims where the defendant is any entity other

than the United States. See, e.g., Conner v. United States, 641 F. App'x972,975 (Fed.

Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (citing 28 U.S.C. $ 1491(aXl); United States v. Sherwood,3l2

U.S. 584, 588 (1941); Berdickv. United States,612F.2d 533, 536 (Ct. Cl. 1979).

Therefore, Mr. Elleby's claims against state officials and private individuals are outside

this court's jurisdiction and must be dismissed.

In addition, this court is bound by Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent

holding that the court's jurisdiction under the Tucker Act "is limited to claims against the

United States based on sources of law that mandate monetary relief." 1d (citing United

States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287,289-90 (2009). A plaintiff must show that "the

source of substantive law he relies upon'can fairly be interpreted as mandating

compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained."' 1d. (quoting

united states v. Mitchell,463 u.s. 206,216-17 (1983). Even if the court were to read

Mr. Elleby's complaint as against the United States, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear

Mr. Elleby's claims because the Federal Circuit has found that the authorities Mr. Elleby

relies on are not money mandating. See id. (citing, e.g., LeBlanc v. United States,50

F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Harris v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 180, 190 (2014);

Ogdenv. UnitedStates,6l Fed. Cl. 44,a7 Q004);Carterv. UnitedStates,22SCt.Cl.
898,900(1981). Inaddition"thiscourtlacksauthorityundertheTuckerActtohear

claims "sounding in tort." 28 U.S.C. $ lagl(a)(l). Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction

over Mr. Elleby's tort claims, including his allegations of &aud,

For the reasons above, Mr. Elleby's complaint must be DISMISSED.T The clerk

is directed to enterjudgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

' On November 16,2016, Mr. Elleby filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a

"promissory note" for $410. Mr. Elleby's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED

for the limited purpose of filing the complaint.