# 0RlglNAL

lln tbt 

# @nfte! 

# btutts [.ourt of

# fp[erul @luimg
No. 15-56C 

# FILED (Filed: May 

### 26,2015) [/AY 2

### 6 2015

r.* * * * * +* {. {. {.,1. *.* * * * ;1.* * i<* * * * * * * * * x tl,k {<{. :*

### * 

# * u.s. couRT 

### oF FEDERALCLAI}GI 

### EARNEST GIBSON

# III. :



# Plaintifl * Rule 12(b)(1) 

### Motion 

### to Dismiss,



# * Subject-Matter 

### Jurisdiction; Pro Se 

# v. * Plaintiff; Claim for Declaratory and 

# * Injunctive 

### Relief; Medicare Fraud 

### THE 

### LINITED

# STATES, * SChCMC. 

### * 

# Defendant. *

t,* {. r(* * {. :1. {.* * * * ri(* * * X r! X X X tr {. rt* * * * * * * * * * *

### I

Earnest Gibson 

### III, Houston, T exas,

### pro se 

### Plaintiff' Anand 

### R. Sambhwani, 

### Trial Attorney, 

## with whom were Beniamin 

### Mizer, Assistant 

### Attorney General, 

### Robert 

### E. Kirschman, 

### Jr., Director, and,

### claudia Burke, Assistant 

### Director, 

### commercial Litigation Branch,

## civil Division, 

### u.S. Department 

## of Justice, Washington, 

### D.C., for Defendant. 

### OPINION 

### AND ORDER WHEELER, Judge. 

### Plaintiff Eamest 

### Gibson 

## III ("Mr. Gibson") brings 

### this complaint concerning his 

### indictment 

### in federal 

### district courtfor violations 

### of several 

### criminal statutes as part 

### of his 

### involvement in a$158

### million Medicare fraud scheme. 

### Mr. Gibson seeks declaratory and 

### injunctive 

### relieffor violations of his constitutional 

### rights in connection 

### with his 

### indictment 

### in the Medicare fraud scheme 

### for which he 

### was convicted 

### in federal 

### district 

### court. On March 20. 2015. the Govemment 

### filed a motion to dismiss 

### Mr. Gibson's complaint for 

### lack 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction alleging that 

### Mr. Gibson does 

### not seek monetary 

### relieffrom this Court or cite to a money-mandating source of lawthat

### would give the Court

### jurisdiction under theTucker

### Act. For the reasons set

### forth below, the Govemment's motion to dismiss is 

### GRANTED.Factual Background



### In 2012, 

### the Government charged 

### Mr. Gibson, among 

### others,l as a co-conspirator 

## in a $

### 158 

### million Medicare 

### fraud scheme 

### in the 

### United States 

### District Court 

### for the Southern 

### District ofTexas. See 

### Indictment, at 

### 6, 8, 

### Dkt. 

### No'

# l-2' the Medicare fraud scheme 

### involved "false claims [that] were submitted 

### for Medicare reimbursement and 

### in 

### which kickbacks were 

### given

### to members 

### of the conspiracy 

### in exchange 

### for referral

### of Medicare 

### beneficiariesfor whom fraudulent claims were 

### submitted." See 

### Def.'s Mot. to 

### Dismiss 

### at 1, 

### Dkt. No. 

## 8. As an alleged co-conspirator 

### in the 

### fraud scheme, 

### Mr. Gibson
was charged

### with Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud, 

### l8 U.S.C. $ 1349,Conspiracy to 

### Defraudthe 

### United States and to Pay and Receive 

### Health Care 

### Kickbacks, $ 371, nine counts of 

### violations of the

### Anti-Kickback Statute, 18 U.S.C. S

### 2 and42 U.S.C. $$ 1320(a)' 7b(b), and Conspiracy to Commit Laundering of Monetary Instruments, 18 

### U.S.C' $$ 1347' 19s6(h). 

### Following a

### jury trial, 

### Mr. Gibson was 

### found 

### guilty of the above charged offenses 

### on October

### 21,2014. See 

### Verdict, United States 

### v. Gibson, 

### No. 12-600 

### (S.D'Tex. Oct. 

### 21,2014), ECF 

### No. 

### 331. On January

### 21,2015, 

### Mr. Gibson commenced 

### this action in the 

### court seeking 

### "declaratory 

### relief, or in the alternative, 

### injunctive 

### relief," arguing that the 

### indictment "was constitutionally 

## infirm." See 

### Pl.'s Compl. 

### at 1, 11-13, 

### Dkt. 

### No. 

### 1. The Govemment movedto dismiss 

### Mr. Gibson's case

### for lack of subject matter

### jurisdiction on 

### March 20, 2015. Discussion 

# I. Standards

### for Decision
Before the 

### Court can hear the merits 

### of a case, 

### 'Jurisdiction must be established." Rippa v. 

### United States, 79 Fed. 

### Cl. 639, 641 

### (2007). Thoughpro se 

### litigants are generally 

### given more latitude 

## in their pleadings, 

### this does 

### not relieve a

## pro se 

### iitigant from establishing a 

### court's

### jurisdiction by a preponderance

### of the evidence. Moore 

### v. United States, 94 Fed.

### Cl. 456,460 

### (2010). Subject 

### matterjurisdiction may be challenged at any time by the parties or by the 

### court, sua 

### sponte. 

### Id. when deciding a motion to dismiss 

### for lack 

### ofsubject matter

### jurisdiction, the court 

### "must assume that 

### all undisputed facts alleged in the complaint aretrue and

. . .draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's 

### favor." Jeffersonv. 

### United States, 104 Fed. 

### Cl. 81, 86 (2012). 

### The Tucker 

### Act provides

### the Court 

### with jurisdiction over "claims 

### for money damages against 

### the United States 

### founded either upon 

### the Constitution, 

### or any act

## of

IMr. Gibson's son, Earnest Gibson IV, was also indicted as aco-conspirator in the Medicare fraud scheme. He also filed suit inthis Court, assefting identical claims to hisfather. See Pl.'s Compl., Earnest Gibson IV v. United States, No. l5-57C (Fed. Cl.Jan.2l,20l5), ECF

### No 

## l'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. 

### $ 1a91(a)(1); Fisher 

### v. United States, 402 

### F.3d 1167,'

## ll72 (Fed.

### cir. 2005). However, the

### Tucker

### Act itself "does 

### not create a substantive cause 

### of action

# " Fisher' 402 

### F'3d 

### at 

### I172' Instead' a

### "plaintiff must 

### identifz a separate source

## of substantive 

### lawthat creates the 

### right to money 

### damages." Id.; see also 

### United States 

### v. 

### Mitchell,463 U.S. 

### 206,217 (1983) 

### C'A statute 

### is money-mandating

## if it can

### fairly be 

### interpreted 

### as mandating compensation

### by the Federal 

### Govemment

### for the damages 

### sustained"). This means 

### "the other source

### of law must be reasonably amenable 

### to the readingthat 

### it mandates a 

### right of recovery 

### in damages." Rippa, 79 Fed. 

### Cl. at 642. 

# il. Claims 

### for Declaratory Judgment and 

### Injunctive 

### Relief
The

### court does not have

### jurisdiction over 

### Mr. Gibson's claims

### for declaratory and 

### injunctive 

### relief. Mr. Gibson is 

### not seeking 

### to recover money 

### damages.That fact alone provides the

### court with the basis to dismiss his complaint under theTucker

### Act. See 

### Todd
v. 

### united stares, 386 

### F.3d 1091, 1095 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2004) 

### ("Absent a

### claim for presently due 

### money damages against 

### the 

### united states, 

### the 

### court of Federal 

### claims does 

### not have 

### jurisdiction under the Tucker 

### Act").
Even 

## if Mr. Gibson's complaint could be construed as seeking 

### money damages, 

### none

## of the constitutional and statutory 

### provisions 

### Mr. Gibson 

### cited 

### in his complaint provides 

### this

### court with

### jurisdiction. Mr. Gibson 

### identifies the 

### sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and 

### Thirteenth Amendments 

## to the Constitution as

## well as

### Article 

## III, Section 

## 2of the 

### constitution, the 

### Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, and 42 U.S.C. $ 1981 asthe bases 

### for his 

### claims. These 

### constitutional and statutory provisions, however, are 

### not money 

### mandating. See. 

### e'g., United States 

### v. 

### Connolll',716F'2d 882' 887-88 

### (Fed' 

### Cir' 1983) 

### (holding the

### court has no

### jurisdiction under the First Amendment); Gable v. 

### United states, 106 

### Fed. Cl. 294.295 (2012) 

### ("Sixth Amendment 

### is not money-mandating"); MendezCardenas 

### v. United States, 88 

### Fed. 

### Cl. 162, 167 

### (2009) 

### ("this court may not hear claims under 

### Article 

### III, Section 

### 2"); Johnson v. 

### United States, 79 Fed. 

### Cl' 769' 774 (2007) 

### ("This court, however, cannot entertain claims brought under theThirteenth Amendment because 

### it does not mandate the payment of money damages for its

### violation"); Fry v. 

### united states, 

### 72Fed. 

### Cl. 500" 507 

### Q006) ("the Due Process 

### clause 

### of the 

### Fifth Amendment 

### [is] not 

### money

# mandating. Likewise, 

### the 

### Ninth and Tenth Amendment are 

### not money 

### mandating"). Similarly, this Court does 

### not have

### jurisdiction under the

### Civil Rights 

### Act, 42 U.S.C. 

### $ 1981, as

### jurisdiction under the

### Act resides 

### exclusively 

### in the 

### district courts. See 

### Marlin v. United States, 63 Fed. 

### CL.475,476 (2005). 

### Finally, the 

### Court does 

### not have

### jurisdiction over 

### Mr. Gibson's complaint based 

### upon any 

### of the

### five sources 

### of lawthat 

### Mr. Gibson 

### newly raised 

### in his response

### to the

### Government'smotiontodismiss. 

### Mr.Gibsoncitedto28U.S.C.$1331,28U.S.C.$1491,

28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1495, 5 

### U.S.C. S706, and Federal Rule 

### of 

### Civil Procedure 

### C'FRCP') 

### 57. See 

### Pl.'s Resp. at

### 4-7,Dkt. No. 

### 9. But like the sources of substantive law that 

### Mr. Gibson cited 

### in his complaint, none 

### of these sources

### of law is money-mandating either.
First, 28 U.S.C. $ 1331 

### only establishes

### thejurisdiction ofthe federal 

### district courts. 

### Hall 

### v. United States,69 Fed. 

### C1.51,56 (2005) 

### ("The United States 

### Court

### of Federal 

### Claims

. . . is 

### not a 

### United States 

### District Court and,therefore, does not have

### jurisdiction
over claims arising under 28

### u.s.c. $ 

### 1331). Second, though 28

### u.s.c. $ 1491 establishes 

### the Court's

### jurisdiction, 

### it only confers

### jurisdiction where 

### a substantive 

### right exists that mandatesthe payment of money by the 

### Government. 

### Plaintiff must 

### still 

### identi$ aseparate money-mandating source 

### of substantive 

### law, which 

### Mr' Gibson has

### not. See Fisher, 402 F.3d 

### at 1172.Third, 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1495 does 

### not apply because 

### Mr. Gibson has not alleged that 

### his conviction was reversed 

### or set aside nor has he attached a pardon 

### or certificate

## of innocence 

### that

### would give 

### this Court

### jurisdiction' S]'kes

### v' United States, 105 

### Fed'

## cl' 231,234 

### (2012). Fourth, 5 

### U.S.C. $706 isthe standard 

### of review the Court applies to 

### bid protest cases; 

### it is not a money-mandating source 

### of 

### law. Finally, FRCP 57 is not a rule

## of this Court and 

### therefore 

### is inapplicable

### to 

### Mr. Gibson's 

### complaint. Even 

## if Mr. Gibson had cited 

### to Rule 57

### of the Rules 

### of the 

### United States 

### Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims, 

### it would still not provide theCourt with

### jurisdiction because 

### Mr. Gibson is not seeking adeclaratory 

### judgment 

## in connection 

### with a procurement, see

### 28 U.S.C' 

## $ 1491,

### or a declaratory 

### judgment in connection 

### with 23 U.S.C. $ 1507 

### (giving the Court

### jurisdiction under Internal Revenue Code Section 7428 pertaining to "status and classifications 

### oforganizations under section 

### 501(c)(3)" of the

### code). Rather, 

### Mr. Gibson is seeking adeclaratory

### judgment in connection 

### with his indictment and 

### conviction 

### inthe Medicare fraud scheme, 

### which the 

### Court cannot 

### provide. Pl.'s Compl. at 1

. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the 

### Govemment's motion to dismiss is 

### GRANTED.


### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED. 

# fl.-*C

# bPL
THOMAS C.

### WHEELER Judge