# ORI I Al 3Jn tbe Wniteb**~tates** 

# <!Court ofjf 

# eberal <!Claims No. 15-1281C (Filed December 14, 2015) NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

### ************************ * * JEROME SMITH, 

### * * Plaintiff, 

### * v. 

### * * THE UNITED STATES, 

### * 

### * Defendant. 

### * * 

### ************************

ORDER 

# FILED DEC 1

## 42015 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

On December 8, 2015, the Clerk's office received a package from Mr. Smith, which was not filed at that time because it was not in a recognizable form for filing. Included in this packet were documents from the United States District Court ofthe Eastern District ofCalifornia regarding how to file a complaint in that court; a receipt from a cash withdrawal from Mr. Smith's bank, on which he scrawled concerns that a misprinted credit card was incorrectly given his bank account number; and three credit cards in someone else's name. Itis not clear ifMr. Smith was trying to amend his complaint with the notations on the receipt, and the only reference to the government is a crypticphrase including "[a]n FBI and LDS ID theft case." This unusual submission has prompted the Court to review the documents filed as the complaint. These mainly consisted ofmostly illegible handwritten notes on the forms that our court's StaffAttorney Office providedplaintiffto assist him in filing a complaint with our court. As much as his handwriting canbe deciphered, plaintiffs complaint seems to be that he cannot access money easily, perhaps because he has lost his credit cards or due to the illiquidity ofhis alleged assets. He also mentions inpassing that he has copyrighted a transit symbol. Subject-matterjurisdiction canbe challengedby the parties at any time, or by the court itself. 

### Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004)."Ifthe court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matterjurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Rule 12(h)(3) ofthe Court ofFederal Claims (RCFC). When questioning whether subject-matterjurisdiction exists, "the allegations stated in the complaint are taken as true andjurisdiction is decided on the face ofthe pleadings

." Shearin v. United States, 992 F.2d 1195, 1195-96 (Fed

. Cir. 1993)

. The documents treated as Mr

. Smith's complaint do not appear to contain any factual allegations concerning the United States government, much less anything related to our subject-matterjurisdiction. Plaintiffdid not allege a contract with the federal government, a right under a statute mandating compensation from the federal government, or any other basis for jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491. This case is accordingly 

### DISMISSED, under RCFC 12(h)(3), for lack of subject-matterjurisdiction. The Clerk's office shall close the case and return to Mr. Smith the receipt and other documents received on December 8, 2015. Concerning the credit cards, since they were not in plaintiffs name, the Clerk's office has contacted the respective companies, confirmed the accounts are closed, and destroyed the cards. Considering the confused nature ofthe papers filed as the complaint, it appears that plaintiffdoes not understand our court'sjurisdiction or purpose. Mister Smith's comments on the informapauperis forms he submitted suggest that he did not even know that a filing fee is required to proceed in our court. Under these circumstances and in light ofthe dismissal, the Court concludes that the filing fee for this matter shouldbe waived. 

### IT IS SO ORDERED.

- 2 -