# ORHffiB$\IAI.

lJn

# tbt @nftpD

# btutts @ourt of

# /plrrul @lsfms 

# FILED

KAREY COLEMAN,


### Plaintiff.

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant. No. 13-718C Fifed: 

### June 3.20'14



# . : JUN 32014 U.S. COURT OF 

# - FEDERAL CLAIMS 

# * Pro Se 

### Plaintiff; ln Forma 

# * Pauperis 

### Application; Motion 

# * to Dismiss; Lack 

### of Subject 

# * Matter 

### Jurisdiction.

Karey 

### Coleman, Fishers, lN, oro se.


### Robert 

### C. Bigler, Trial Attorney, Commercial 

### Litigation Branch, 

### Civil Division, United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, D.C., for 

### defendant. With him were 

### Robert 

### E. Kirschman,

### Jr., Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

### and 

### Stuart F. Delery, AssistantAttorney General, Civil Division, Washington, D.C.



## ORDER HORN. J.
Plaintiff, Karey Coleman, filed 

### atwo-page pro se complaint in

### the United States Court

### of Federal 

### Claims. As initially filed, the caption of the complaint stated: "lN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED 

### STATES,'and bore two different case numbers, 

### neither 

### ofwhich 

### is of the 

### case number 

### type assigned by

### this court: "13-1509" and
"1 : 13-cv-001 70-TWP-DKL.''



# ' Plaintiff's 

### case numbers appear 

### to be 

### from plaintiff's prior cases 

### filed in

### the United 

### States Court 

### of Appeals

### forthe Seventh Circuit, Coleman 

### v.

### J. Everett 

### Lioht Career Center, 

### No. 13-1509 (7th Cir. May

### 23,2013) and in

### the United States District Court 

### for the Southern District of Indiana, Coleman v. J. Everett Liqht Career Center, No. 1:'13-cv170-TWP-DKL (S.D. Ind. Mar. 1.2013).Moreover, 

### the initial complaint named "J. EVERETT LIGHT CAREER 

### CENTER*

as

### the defendant.3 Along with his complaint, plaintiff filed an Application 

### to Proceed ln Forma 

### Pauperis. In hisApplication

### to Proceed 

### ln Forma Pauperis, Mr. Coleman states 

### that he 

### is currently unemployed, 

### has had no source 

### of income

### for 

### the past twelve 

### months, 

### and has not received 

### any gifts, inheritances, 

### pensions, annuities, life insurance. rents. interest 

### or dividends in

### the Dast 

### twelve 

### months. He 

### also claims he does not own real estate, stock, or bonds, has no cash, and has no money in checking, savings, or any other accounts. 

### Subsequently,

### the Clerk's 

### Office received

## a submission 

### from plaintiff, titled 

### "Notification." 

### The Clerk's Office 

### did not

### file plaintiff's submission because 

### it was procedurally defective, and was not submitted inaccordance

### with RCFC 5.3, 5.5(cX5), 

### and 

### 5.5(d)(2). After it

### was returned 

### tothe plaintiff, plaintiff submitted another filing to 

### the Clerk's Office, entitled 

### "Pleadings." Although 

### that filing, again, 

### was procedurally 

### defective, 

### it wasfiled 

### by leave 

### of the undersigned. 

### In his "Pleadings" submission, plaintiff correctly identifiesthis court as

### the United States Court

### of Federal Claims and properly names 

### the United States as 

### the 

### defendant. As discussed more

### fully below, considering plaintiff's pro se status, and drawing 

### all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor, 

### the court 

### willtreat plaintiff's "Pleadings" submission 

### as an amended complaint,


### as it correctly identifies 

### the United States as the defendant, andthis court as

### the court inwhich plaintiff's complaint is

### filed. In his confused filing, plaintiff alleges:


### 2 According 

## to the information available 

### on its website, 

### the 

### "J. EVERETT LIGHT CAREER CENTER' is a "CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION CENTER," located 

### in Indianapolis, Indiana, 

### which "serves 12 school corporations 

### in Marion, Boone and Hamilton counties 

### with 

### a variety

### of quality 

### career and technical education programs." 

### Available 

### at http:i/jelcc.com/about-jel/ 

### (lastvisited 

### on June 

### 3,2014) (capitalization in original).

3 Rule 1O(a) of

### the Rules of

### the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims (RCFC) (2013) states 

### that "[t]he 

### title ofthe complaint 

### must name all

### the parties



### . 

### . . ,with 

### the United States designated asthe party defendant.' RCFC 10(a); see also 28 U.S.C S 1a91(a)(1) 

### (2014. 

### fhe United States Supreme Court has indicated 

### thatforsuitsfiled inthe United States 

### Court

### of Federal 

### Claims and its predecessors, 

### "[i]f

### the reliefsought 

### is against 

### others 

### than

### the United States

### the suit as 

### to them must 

### be ignored 

### as beyond the jurisdiction of

### the court." United States 

### v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (citation 

### omitted). Stated differently, "the onlv proper defendant for any matter beforethis court 

### is

### the United 

### States, not its officers, 

### nor any other 

### individual." Stephenson 

### v. United 

### States,58 Fed. 

### Cl. 186, 190 (2003) (emphasis 

### in original); 

### see also United States v. 

### Sherwood,312 U.S.

### at588; Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 

### 621,623 (Fed. Cir.), reh'o denied (Fed. 

### Cir.'1997); 

### Hoverv. United States, 113 Fed. 

### C|.295,296 (2013) ("As an initial matter, 

### it iswell settledthat

### the United States is

### the only proper defendant in the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims.");Warren 

### v. United 

### States, 106 Fed. 

### Cl. 507, 510-11 (2012) 

### ("lt is

### well settled that 

### the United States is

### the only proper defendant in the Court of Federal Claims."); Mavv. United States, 80 Fed. 

### Cl.442,444 ("Jurisdiction, 

### then, is limited

### to suits against 

### the United States."), 

### affd, 293 F.App'x 775 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q and reh'q en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2008).1. I Karey Coleman am pleading Tanya 

### Pratt' made 

### a ruling on my claim that 

### was ruledfraudulently by

### the statements Tanya Pratt 

### made 1:13- cv-00718-MHB [sic] lC 35-44-2-15 

### Tanya Pratt held

## a ruling

### on

## a supplemental complaint against J. 

### EVERETT LIGHT CAREER CENTER' Stating 

# I did not claim a defendant 

### Todd Delay 

### at all in this cause but Tanya Pratt has Todd Delay in statement ofthe claim



### Todd Delay

### wasthe basis 

### ofthe claims towards 

### J. EVERETT LIGHT CAREER CENTER and Tanya Prattfalsely states 

### Todd Delay was not stated at all sothe name should not exist at all



# ' Tanya 

### Walton Pratt serves as 

### aJudge on

### the United States District Court, Southern District of lndiana.

5The case number 1:13-cv-00718 refers 

### the proceedings inthis court, and should read 1:13-cv-00718-MBH, 

### notto the proceedings before "Tanya Pratt" 

### in

### the United States 

### District Court

### forthe Southern District

### of Indiana. The reference 

### to "lC 35-44-2-1 ," appears 

### to be 

### a reference 

### to theformer Indiana 

### Code Provision 

### for "Perjury." The statute stated:
(a)

### A person who: 

### (1) makes 

## a false, material statement 

### under 

### oath 

### or affirmation, knowing the statement to be false or not believing itto be true; or 

### (2) has knowingly 

### made 

### two (2) 

### or more material statements, 

### in a proceeding before 

### a court or grand jury, which 

### are inconsistent to the degree 

### that one (1) of them 

### is necessarily 

### false; commits perjury, a Class Dfelony.
(b) In a prosecution under subsection (a)(2) ofthis section: (1)

### the indictment 

### or information need not specify which statement is actually false, and 

### (2) the falsity 

## of

## a statement 

### may 

### be established 

### sufficient for 

### conviction, 

# by proof

## that

## the defendant 

### made ineconcilably contradictory statements which are material tothe point in question.



### The statute 

### was repealed, 

### effective July 

### 1, 2012, 

### and replaced

### with Indiana Code 35- 44.1-2-1 (2012), which contains substantially similar language.

6Capitalization, punctuation, grammar and spelling errors appear 

### as in Mr. Coleman's submissions. 2.

## 4. fanya Prattwere 

### the statements 

### made under oath 

### if so isn't 

### that a federal crime notjustice evidently if

### the stamens [sic] are known 

### to be false

5. Then when Ifiled the appeal itwas based onthe ruling because Tanya Pratt had already claimed 

### J. EVERETT LIGHT CAREER CENTER had violated under Tiile I General Provision

When Isent my complaint to the Seventh Circuit Court 13-1509 Everett 

### Mckinley 

### Dirksen/ claimed 

## I wasn't under poverty 

### level procedure article 5183(b) 

## 7. Everett McKinley 

### made several 

### of false statements amongst every appeal ordering to pay court fee and Iam evidently under poverty level under oath isn't that lC 35-44-2-1 also 

## 8. So Ifeel like

### the issues within thejustice system need

### to be addressed and I need a correct ruling as well due by my civil rights

That'swhy Istate due to violation of my civil rights as a citizen Iask for 

### a relief

### of 12,000,000 dollars due

### to detours towards my success and 

### the misconduct lead by others against 

### my motivation 

### on procedure to succeed in my life

Defendant moves 

### to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant

### to RCFC 12(b)(1) 

### for lack of subject matter

### jurisdiction. Defendant also assertsthat "[e]ven ifthe Court were 

### to possess jurisdiction over Mr. Coleman's complaint," plaintiff's complaint 

### is baned by
res

### judicata. Moreover, the government alleges that

### the complaint fails to state 

### a claim upon

### which relief 

### can be granted and should be dismissed pursuant

### to RCFC 12(bX6) because 

### tothe extent 

### plaintiffs complaint 

### "does state any claim 

### at all, 

### it appears to 

### attempt

### to state

## a claim against 

## a Federal 

### judge 

### for dismissing 

### plaintiffs previous complaint," 

### filed in

### the Southern District 

### of 

### Indiana. Defendant states 

### that "it appears 

### that Mr. Coleman's complaint 

### in this Court 

### is really

## a result 

### of dissatisfaction" with United States District Court Judge Tanya 

### Walton Pratt's decision dismissing plaintiffs 

### previous "civil rights" complaint 

### for failure 

### to state 

### a claim. Mr. Coleman appealed Judge Pratt's decision to the Seventh Circuit but his appeal was dismissed for failure to pay

### the docketing

### fee. See Coleman

### v.J. Everett Liqht Career Ctr., 

### No. 13-1509. To 

### date, plaintiff 

### has 

### not responded

### to the government's motion 

### to dismiss, although plaintiff has been allotted moretime than provided underthe court's Rules.



## t lt appears 

### that plaintiff confused 

### the name 

### ofthe courthouse building 

### in which the United States 

### Court of Appeals 

### for 

### the Seventh Circuit 

### and

### the United 

### States District Court for 

### the Northern District 

### of lllinois are located, with

### the name ofthe individual who dismissed 

### plaintiffs appeal for failure to paythe required docketing fee. o.

### DtscusstoN

When determining whether 

### a complaint

### filed by a 

### ple se plaintiff 

### is sufficient to 

### invoke review 

### by 

### a court, pro 

### se plaintiffs 

### are entitled

### to liberal construction 

### of their 

### pleadings. See Haines

### v. Kerner, 

### 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (requiring 

### that allegations 

### contained 

### in

## a pro 

### se complaint 

### be held

## to "less stringent standards 

### than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"), reh'q 

### denied,405 U.S. 948 (1972); see also Erickson v. 

### Pardus,551 

### U.S.89,94 (2007); Huqhes

### v. Rowe,449 

### U.S.5,9-10 (1980); Estelle v. 

### Gamble,429 

### U.S.97, 106 (1976), reh'q

### denied,429 U.S. 1066 (1977); Matthews v. 

### United States, 

### No. 2013-5109,2014 

### WL 1758664, 

### at 

## .1 (Fed. 

### Cir. May 5,20141; Diamond 

### v. United States, 1 1

### 5 Fed. Cl.516, 524 

### (2014). "However, "'[t]here is no duty
on

### the part of

### thetrial court

### to create a claim which [the plaintiffj has not spelled 

### out in 

### his [or her] pleading.""'Lenqen 

## v. United States, 

### 100 Fed. 

## C|.317,328 (2011) (alterations 

### in original) (quoting Scoqin 

### v. United 

### States,33 Fed. 

### C|.285,293 (1995) (quoting Clark v. Nat'l Travelers Life Ins. 

### Co.,518 F.2d 1167,1169 (6th Cir. 1975))); see 

### also Bussie 

### v. United States,

### 96 Fed. 

### Cl. 89, 

### 94,

### affd, 443 F. 

### App'x 542 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Minehan 

### v. United 

### States,75 Fed. 

### C|.249,253 (2007). "While 

### a pro se plaintiff is held to a less stringent standard than that of a plaintiff represented by an attorney, the pro se plaintiff, nevertheless, bears the burden of establishing 

### the Court'sjurisdiction by 

### a preponderance of

### the evidence." Riles 

### v. United States, 93 Fed.

### Cl. 163, 165 (2010) (citing Huqhes v. 

### Rowe,449 U.S. at 9 and

### Tavlorv. United 

### States,303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir.) ("Plaintiff bears the burden of showingjurisdiction by 

### a preponderance ofthe evidence."), reh'q and reh'q en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also Hanis 

### v. United States, 113 Fed. 

### C|.290,292 (2013) ("Although 

### plaintiffs pleadings 

### are held

### to 

### a less stringent standard, such 

### leniency'with respect 

### to mere formalities 

### does not relieve the burden to meetjurisdictional requirements."' (quoting Minehan 

### v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. at 253)).



### In order 

### to provide access 

### to this court 

### to those 

### who cannot pay

### the filing fees mandated 

### by RCFC 

### 77.1(c) (2013), 

### the statute 

### at 

### 28 U.S.C. 

### S 1915 (2012) permits a 

### court

### to allow plaintiffs 

### to file 

### a complaint 

### without payment 

### of fees 

### or security, under 

### specific 

### circumstances. Plaintiff, Karey Coleman, 

### filed an Application 

### to Proceed ln Forma 

### Pauperis. The standard in28 U.S.C. 

### g 1915(a)(1) for informa pauperis eligibility is "unable 

### to pay such fees or give security 

### therefor." Determination ofwhat constitutes "unable

### to pay"

### or unable

### to "give security therefor," and, therefore, whether 

### to allow a plaintiff 

### to proceed in forma pauperis 

### is left 

### tothe discretion 

### of

### the presiding judge, based on 

### the information submitted by

### the plaintiff 

### or 

### plaintiffs. See, 

### e.q., Rowland v. 

### Cal. Men's Colonv, 

### Unit

## ll Men's Advisorv Council, 

### 506 U.S. 194, 217-18 (1993); Fuentes

### v. United 

### States, 100 Fed.

### C|.85,92 (2011). In Fiebelkorn 

### v. United States, the United States Court of Federal Claims indicated:
[T]he threshold for a motion

### to proceed informa pauperis is not high: The statute requires thatthe applicant be "unable 

### to pay suchfees." 28 U.S.C. 

## $ 1915(a)(1). 

### To be "unable 

### to pay such 

### fees" means 

### that paying such 

### feeswould constitute 

### a serious hardship

### on 

### the plaintiff, not 

### that such payment would render plaintiff destitute.Fiebelkorn 

### v. United 

### States,77 Fed. 

### C1.59,62 (2007); see also 

### Havesv. United States,



### 71 Fed. 

### Cl. 366, 369 

### (2006). Although Mr. Coleman's lack 

### of income and absence 

### of savings 

### could qualify him

### for informa pauperis 

### status, his complaint 

### is dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction inthis court.
Moreover, plaintiff has violated 

### the "three strikes" rule 

### of 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1915, by filing at least three complaints infederal courts whichwere dismissed forfailure to state 

### a claim. See Coleman

### v.

### J. Everett Liqht Career 

### Ctr., 

### No. 1:13-cv-17O-TWP-DKL; Coleman v. Bureau of Ind. Educ., No. 1:12-cv-10OS-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind. 

### Nov.2,2012);" Coleman 

### v. lnd. Civil Riqhts Comm'n, 

### No. 1:12-cv-1238-SEB-DML 

### (S.D. Ind. 

### Sept.6, 2012\.

The statute at28 U.S.C. S 1915(g), titled 

### the Prison Litigation Reform Act, denies informa pauperis status to repetitive complainants, and also was enacted to discourage frivolous 

### lawsuits. lt states:

In no event shall 

### a prisonere bring 

### a civil action or appeal ajudgment in a 

### civil action 

### or proceeding under

### this section [titled "Proceedings in forma

8 Plaintiff also filed 

### two appeals 

### tothe United States Court of Appeals 

### for the Seventh Circuit, which 

### were dismissed for failure 

### to pay

### the docketing

### fee. See Coleman

### v. J. Everett Liqht Career 

### Ctr., No. 13-1509 and

# @, No. 12- 3582 (7th Cir. Jan. 

### 25,2013).

s

### A number 

### of courts have reviewedthe words 

### of 28 U.S.C. S 

### 191s(aXl), regarding in 

### forma pauperis applications 

### by non-prisoner 

### litigants 

### in federal courts, 

### and have concluded 

### that Congress 

### did not intend 

### for non-prisoners 

### to be barred 

### from being able 

### to proceed in forma pauperis in federal 

### court. See,

## e4, Flovd 

### v. United States Postal Serv., 105 

### F.3d274,275-76 (6th Cir.), reh'q denied (6th Cir. 1997); Schaqene 

### v. United States, 

### 37 Fed. 

### Cl. 661, 663 (1997) (finding

### that it

### was not

### the intent 

### of Congress to eliminate the informa pauoeris right of access tofederal courts of eligible, indigent, non

### prisoners), appeal dismissed, 152 F.3d 

### 947 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1998); 

### see also 

### In re Prison 

### Litioation Reform

### Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1134 

### (6th 

### Cir. 1997) (discussing 

### how to administer in forma pauperis rights 

### to a non-prisoner, thereby acknowledging

### the rights 

### of non-prisoners 

### to apply

### for in forma oauperis status); Leonard

### v. Lacy, 

### 88 F.3d 181, 183 

### (2d Cir. 1996) (using "sic" following 

### theword "prisoner" 

### in28 U.S.C. 

### S 1915(aX1) seemingly 

### to indicate that the use ofthatword was

### too nanow); Smith 

### v. United States,

1 1

### 3 Fed. Cl. 241
,2a3 

### Q013); Powell v. Hoover, 956 F. Supp. 564, 566 (M.D. Pa. 1997) (holdingthat 

### a "fair reading of the entire section [28 U.S.C. S 

### 191s(aXl)] isthat 

### it is not limited 

### to prisoner suits"). Moreover, 

### 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1915(a)(1) refers 

### to both "person" and "prisoner." 

### The 

### word "person" 

### is usedthree times 

### inthe subsection, 

### while 

### the word "prisoner" 

### is used only once.This court,therefore, finds that

### the single use of the word "prisoner" 

### in

### the language 

### of 28 U.S.C. 

### S 1915(a)(1)

### was not intended

### to eliminate a non-prisoner

### from proceeding in federal court in forma pauperis, provided that 

### the civil litigant 

### can demonstrate appropriate need. 

### Any other interpretation 

### is inconsistent with the statutory scheme of28 U.S.C. S 1915.

### pauperis"l

## if the prisoner 

### has, 

### on

## 3 or more prior occasions, while

incarcerated 

### or detained 

### in any 

### facility, brought 

### an action 

### or appeal in a 

### court 

### of

### the United States 

### that 

### was dismissed 

### onthe grounds 

### that 

### it is 

### frivolous, malicious, 

### orfails

### to state

### a claim upon

### which relief may be granted, unless 

### the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physica. injury.


### 28 U.S.C. 

### S 1915(g); 

### see also McLean 

### v. United 

### States,566 F.3d 

### 391,394 (4th Cir. 

### 2009); Pettus

### v. Morqanthau, 

### 554 F.3d 293, 296 

### (2d Cir. 2009); Warren

### v. United States, 106 Fed.

### C|.507,509-10 (2012); 

### Dudlevv. United 

### States,61 Fed. 

### C|.685,686 (2004).



### As noted above, plaintiff has 

### filed numerous previous lawsuits in federal courts, 

### three 

### of which 

### were dismissed 

### for failure

### to state 

### a claim upon which relief 

### can be 

### granted. See, e.q., Coleman v.

### J. Everett Lioht Career Ctr., No. 1:13-cv-170-TWP-DKL 

### (Dismissing

### the case because 

### "no plausible 

### claim 

### has been stated."); Coleman v. 

### Bureau

## of Ind. Educ., 

### No. 1:12-cv-1O0S-JMS-MJD 

### ("Despite repeated 

### efforts and directions asto applicable guidelines for pleadings, 

### coleman remains unable to assen a plausible claim against the defendant."); Coleman 

### v. Ind. Civil Riqhts Comm'n, No. 1:12- 

### cv-l238-sEB-DML (Holding

### that plaintiffs "complaint 

### fails

### to state 

### a claim upon which 

### relief can be 

### granted."). Therefore, 

### Mr. coleman is subject 

### to the "three strikes" rule 

### and hisApplication 

### to Proceed 

### ln Forma Pauoeris 

### must be 

### denied. Plaintiff 

### is barred fromfiling further informa pauperis petitions inthis court. Moreover, 

### on 

### the merits, Mr. coleman's complaint 

### is insufficient 

### to establish a 

### cause 

### of action 

### inthis 

### court. lt is well established 

### that "'subject-matter jurisdiction, because 

### it involves 

### a court's power

### to hear 

### a case, 

### can never beforfeited or waived.,,, 

### Arbaqq[v..Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (quoting United States v. Cotton, 535 

### u.s. 625, 630 (2002)). "[F]ederal courts have 

### an independent outgetion

### to ensure tnat 

### they 

### do not exceed 

### the scope of their jurisdiction, 

### and therefore 

### ihey must raise and decide 

### jurisdictional questions 

### that 

### the parties 

### either overlook

### or elect not

### to press." Hendersorr ex rel. Henderson v. 

### shinseki, 131

### s.cl. 1197,1202 (2011); see also Hertz 

### corp. 

### v. Friend, 

### 559 

### u.s. 77,94 (2010) 

### ("courts have 

### an independent obligation to determinewhether 

### subjeclmatter jurisdiction exists, evenwhen no party challenges it." (citing A&au-sh 

### v.

### Y 

### & H Corp., 

### 546 U.S. 

### at 514)); Speciat Devices, 

### Int.v. OEA. lnc., 269 F.3d 

### 1340,1342 (Fed. 

### cir.2001) ('tAl court has a

### dutyto tnquire into itsyurlsdiction 

### to hear and decide 

### a case." (citing Johannsen

### v. pay Less Druq Stores N.W., Inc., 91g 

### F2d 160, 161 (Fed. 

### cir. 1990))); 

### view Enq'o. Inc.

### v. Roboticvision 

### svs- tnc. 11s F.3d 962, 

### 963 (Fed.

### cir. 1997) 

### ("[c]ourts must atways look 

### to

### theirprisdictiorl whetherthe parties raise 

### the issue 

### or not."). "The objectionthat afederal court lacks 

### subjeclmatter jurisdiction : . . may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative,

### ai any stage inthe litigation, even 

### aftertrial andthe entry ofjudgment."Arbauqh v.

### y & H 

### corp., 

### 5i6 U.S. 

### at 506; see atso 

### cent. pines Land 

### co.. L.L.c. 

### v. united

### statEl,667T3d-1360,

1

### 364 n.1 (Fed. 

### cir. 2012) ("

### An objection 

### to 

### a court's suulect rnatter yurisdiction 

### can be raised 

### by any party or the court

### at any stage 

### of litigation, including after 

### trial and the entry ofjudgment." (citing Arbauoh v.

### Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. at 506)); Rick,s Mushroom

### Serv., lnc.

### v. United 

### States,521 F.3d 1338, 1346 

### (Fed.

### Cir.2008) ("[A]ny 

### party may

challenge, 

### or

### the court may raise 

### sua sponte, subject matterjurisdiction 

### at any time." (citing 

### Arbauqh

### v.

### Y & H Corp., 

### 546 U.S. 

### at 506; Folden 

### v. United States, 

### 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. 

### Cir.), reh'q 

### and reh'q 

### en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1127 (2005); and Fanninq, Phillips & Molnar v.

### West, 160 F.3d 

### 717,720 (Fed. Cir. 1998))); Pikulin v. United 

### States,97 Fed. 

### C|.71,76, appeal 

### dismissed,425 F.App'x 

### 902 (Fed. 

### Cir.2011). Infact, "[s]ubject matter

### jurisdiction is 

### an inquiry 

### that this court must raise sua sponle, even 

### where

. 

### . . neither party has raised 

### this issue." Metabolite Labs.. Inc. 

### v. Lab. Corp. ofAm. 

### Holdinqs,370 F.3d 1354, 1369 (Fed. Cir.) (citing Textile Prods., lnc.

### v. Mead Corp., 134 

### F.3d 1481,1485 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q denied and

### en banc suqqestion declined (Fed. Cir.), cert. 

### denied,525 U.S.826 (1998)), reh'q 

### and reh'q en 

### bancdenied (Fed. 

### Cir.2004), cert. qranted 

### inpedsub. nom Lab. Corp. ofAm. Holdinqs 

### v. Metabolite Labs., 

### Inc.,546 U.S.975 (2005), cert. dismissed as improvidentlvqranted, 548 U.S. 124 (2006).

Pursuant to

### the RCFC and

### the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

### a plaintiff need only 

### state in

### the complaint 

### "a short 

### and plain statement 

### ofthe grounds 

### for the court's jurisdiction," 

### and "a 

### short and plain statement 

### ofthe claim showing 

### thatthe pleader is entitled

### to 

### relief." RCFC 8(a)(1), 

### (2)(2013); Fed. R. Civ. 

### P.8(aX1), 

### (2)(2014);see also Ashcroft 

### v. lqbal, 556 U.S. 

### 662, 677-78 (2009) (citing Bell 

### Atl. Corp. 

### v. Twomblv, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57, 570 

### (2007)). "Determination ofjurisdiction startswith 

### the complaint, which must bewell-pleaded inthat it must state the necessary elements ofthe plaintiffs 

### claim, independent 

### of any defense 

### that may be 

### interposed." Hollev

### v. United States, 124 F.3d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir.) (citing Franchise 

### Tax Bd.

### v. Constr. Laborers Vacation 

### Trust,463 U.S. 1 (1983)), reh'q denied (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Ktamath Tribe Claims Comm. 

### v. United States, 

### 97 Fed. Cl. 

### 203, 208 (2011); Gonzalez-McCaullev Inv. Grp.. Inc.

### v. United States, 

### 93 Fed. Cl. 710, 713 

### (2010). "Conclusory allegations 

### of law and unwarranted inferences 

### of fact 

### do not suffice 

### to support

### a 

### claim." Bradley 

### v. Chiron 

### Corp., 136 

### F.3d 1317,1322 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1998);

### see aiso Mczeal

### v. Sprint f..lextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1363 n.9 (Fed. 

### Cn.2007) (Dyk, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (quoting C.Wright and 

### A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure S 1286 (3d ed. 200a)). 

### "A plaintiff's 

### factual allegations 

### must'raise a right 

### to relief above 

### the speculative level' and cross 'the line from conceivable to 

### plausible."' Three S Consultino 

### v. United States, 104 Fed. 

### C|.510, 523(2012) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.Twomblv,55O U.S. at55S), aff'd, No.

### 2012-5104,2014WL 1394969 (Fed. Cir. 

### Apr. 11,

### 2014). As stated in Ashcroft v. 

### lqbal, "[a] pleading 

### that offers 'labels 

### and conclusions' 

### or'a formulaic recitation 

### of the elements of a cause of action will not do.' 550 

### u.s. at 

### 555. Nor does a complaint suffice 

### if it tenders 'naked assertion[s]' 

### devoid

### of 'further 

### factual enhancement."' Ashcroft v. 

### lqbal,556 U.S. 

### at678 (quoting Bell Att. Corp. v.Twombty,5S0 U.S. 

### at555).

When deciding a case based on 

### a lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure 

### to state

## a claim,

### this court must assume 

### that 

### all undisputed

### facts alleged 

### in the complaint are true 

### and must draw 

### all reasonable inferences in

### the non-movant's favor. 

### See Erickson

## v. Pardus, 

### 551 

## U.S.89,94 (2007) 

### ("ln addition, 

### when ruling

### on a defendant's motion 

### to dismiss, ajudge must accept as true all of thefactual allegations contained inthe complaint." (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v.Twomblv, 550 U.S. at 555-56 (citingSwierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 

### 506,508 n.1 (2002)))); 

### Scheuerv. Rhodes,416

U.S. 232, 

### 236 (1974) ("Moreover, 

### it is

### well established 

### that, in passing 

### on 

### a motionto 

### dismiss, whether on 

### the ground

### of lack ofjurisdiction over 

### the subject matter 

### or for failure 

### to state 

### a cause 

### of action,

### the allegations of

### the complaint should be construed favorably 

### tothe pleader."), abroqated 

### on other qrounds 

### by Harlow 

### v. Fitzoerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), recoqnized 

## !y Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 190 (1984); United Pac. 

### lns. Co.

### v. United States,

### 464 F.3d 1325, 1327-28 

### (Fed. 

### Cir. 2006); Samish Indian Nation 

### v. United 

### States,419 F.3d 1355, 1364 (Fed. 

### Cir.2005); Boise Cascade Corp. v. United States, 

### 296 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q 

### and reh'q 

### en banc denied (Fed. 

### Cn.2002), cert. 

### denied,538 U.S.906 (2003).

The Tucker Act grantsjurisdiction tothis court asfollows:

The United States Court of Federal Claims shall havejurisdiction to render 

### judgment upon any claim against 

### the United States founded 

### either upon 

### the Constitution, or any

### Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive 

### department,

### or upon 

### any express 

### or implied contract 

### with

### the Uniteo States, or

### for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort. 

### 28U.S.C.$1a91(a)(1). AsinterpretedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,theTucker 

### Act waives sovereign immunity

### to allowjurisdiction 

### over claims against 

### the United 

### states (1)founded on an express or implied contract with

### the united states, (2) seeking 

## a refund 

### from

## a prior payment made 

### tothe government,

### or (3) based 

### on federal 

### constitutional, statutory, 

## or regulatory 

### law mandating compensation 

### by the federal government for damages 

### sustained. 

### see United states v. Navaio Nation, 

### ss6 

### u.s. 2g7, 289-90 (2009); United States

### v. Mitcheil,463 U.S. 

### 206,216 (1983); see also Greenlee Cntv.. 

### Ariz. 

### v. United 

### States,487 F.3d 

### 871,875 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q

### and reh'q en oanc denied 

### (Fed. Cit. 2007), cert. denied, 

### 552 U.S. 1142 (2008); patmer 

### v. United States, 168 F.3d 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 1999).


### "Not every claim invoking 

### the Constitution, 

### a federal statute, 

### or

### a regulation is cognizable under 

### theTucker

### Act. The claim must be one

### for money damages against 

### the United 

### States.



### . .

# ." United States 

### v. Mitchell, 

### 463 U.S. 

### at 216; see also United 

### $tatesv. White Mountain 

### Apache Tribe, 

### 537 U.S. 465,

### 472 (2003); Smith

### v. United 

### States, 

### 709 

### F.

## 3d 1114, 1116 

### (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 

### 134 

### S. Ct. 2S9 (2013)r 

### FaaioSnack Coro.

# v ,566 F.3d 1358, 1360 

### (Fed. 

### Cir.2009); Rick;s Mushroom 

### serv., Inc.

### v. United

### states, 

### s2l F.3d

### at 1343 ("[p]laintiff 

### must.

. . identify a substantive source 

### of law that creates

### the right 

### to recovery 

### of money damages against 

### the united

### states."). In ontario Power Generation, 

### Inc.

### v. United 

### states,the United 

### states 

### court ofAppeals for 

### the Federal 

### circuit identified three types of monetary claims for which jurisdiction is lodged in

### the united states 

### court of Federal

### claims. The court wrole:


### The underlying monetary claims 

### are of three

# types. First, claims 

### alleging 

## the existence 

## of

# a contract between

## the plaintiff 

### and thegovernment 

### fall withinthe Tucker 

### Act's waiver.



# . . Second, 

### the Tucker

Act'swaiver encompasses claims where "the plaintiff has paid money over 

### to the Government, directly 

### or in effect, and 

### seeks return 

### of all or part 

### of that 

### sum." Eastport S.S. lCorp.

### v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl.

### 599,605-06,' 

### 372 F.2d [1002,] 1007-08 [(1967)] (describing 

### illegal exaction claims as claims 

### "inwhich 'the Government has 

### the citizen's 

### money 

### in its pocket"' (quoting Clapp 

### v. United 

### States,127 Ct. 

### Cl. 505, 117 

### F. Supp. 576, 580 (1954))

. . . .Third,the Court of Federal Claims hasjurisdiction over those claimswhere "money has not been paid but 

### the plaintiff assertsthat he is nevertheless entitled 

### to a payment fromthe

### treasury." Eastport S.S., 372
F

### .2d 

### at

# 7. Claims in 

### this third category, 

### where no payment 

### has been 

### made

### to the government, 

### either directly 

### or in effect, require 

### that the "particular provision of law relied upon grants the claimant, expressly or by implication, 

### a right

### to be paid 

### a certain

### sum." ld.; see also Testan [v United Statesl

,424 U.S.1392,1 401-02 [1976] ("Where 

### the United States is 

### the defendant and 

### the plaintiff 

### is not suing

### for money improperly exacted or retained, 

### the basis of thefederal claim-whether it be

### the Constitution, a 

### statute, 

### or

## a regulation-does 

### not create 

## a cause

### of action 

### for money damages unless, as the Court of Claims has stated, that basis 'in itself

. . . 

### can fairly 

### be interpreted 

### as mandating compensation 

### by

### the Federa Governmentfor

### the damage sustained."' (quoting Eastport S.S., 372 F.2d 

### at 1009)). This category is commonly referred

### to as claims brought under
a "money-mandating" statute.
Ontario 

### PowerGeneration, lnc. 

### v. United 

### States,369 F.3d 1298, 1301 (Fed. 

### Cir.2004); see alsoTwo. of Saddle Brook v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 101, 106 (2012). 

### To prove

### that 

## a statute

## or regulation 

## is money-mandating, 

## a plaintiff must demonstrate 

### that an independent source 

### of substantive 

### law relied upon "'can 

### fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by

### the Federal 

### Government."' United States v. Navaio Nation, 556 U.S. at 290 (quoting United Statesv.

### Testan,424 U.S. at400); see 

### also United States

### v. White MountainApache Tribe, 

### 537 U.S. at 

### 472; United States v. 

### Mitchell,463 U.S.

### at 217; Blueport 

### Co.. LLC 

### v. United 

### States, 

### 533 F.3d 1374, 1383 

### (Fed. 

### Cir.2008), cert. 

### denied,555 U.S. 1153 

### (2009). The source 

### of law granting monetary relief must be distinct fromthe Tucker 

### Act 

### itself. See United States v. Navaio Nation, 556 U.S. at 290 (The Tucker Act does not create "substantive rights; [it issimply 

## al jurisdictional provision[] 

### that operatels] 

### to waive sovereign immunity 

### for claims premised 

### on other sources 

### of law (e.9., statutes 

### or contracts)."). 

### "'lfthe statute 

### is not money-mandating, 

### the Court 

### of Federal Claims lacks 

### jurisdiction, 

### and

### the dismissal 

### should be

### for lack 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction."' Jan's Helicopter 

### Serv.. Inc.

### v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Greenlee Cntv., Ariz. v. United States, 487 F.3d at 876); Fisher v. United States


### , 402 F.3d 1167 

### , 1173 (Fed. Cir. 

### 2005) (The absence

### of

### a money-mandating 

### source 

### is "fatal 

### to the court's jurisdiction under the Tucker Act."); Peoples v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 553, 565-66 (2009).

10

### Mr. Coleman's

### short, confused pleading

### fails

## to allege 

### any basis

### for the

jurisdiction of this 

### court. lt appearsthat plaintiff's allegations 

### take issue with and allege misconduct 

### as 

### a result 

### of a ruling issued 

### by united 

### states District 

### court Judge Tanya Pratt of

### the United States District Court for 

### the Southern District 

### of Indiana, dismissing plaintiff's 

### 2013 complaint for failure 

### to state a

### claim. see coleman v.

### J. Everett Liqhl 

### career 

### ctr., No. 1:13-cv-170-TWP-DKL. plaintiff alleges that Judge Tanya eratt "made 

### a ruling on my claim" that was "ruled fraudulenfly bythe statementsTanya pratt made.,, Mr. 

### coleman allegesthat the "fraudulent[]" statements allegedly made byJudge Tanya Pratt were "made under oath" and plaintiff claims that this 

### iJa "federal crime noijustice." J_udg9s enjoy immunity from suit for activities performed intheir officialjudicial capacity. 

### SJe Mireles v. Waco, S02 U.S. 

### 9, 11-13 (1991); Butz

### v. Economou, 43b U.S. 478, 508_ 

### 17_(978); Bradlev 

### v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 

### 335,347 (1871); 

# @, 97 Fed. Cl. at

### 75. This court, therefore, cannot entertarn ptarntms ctarnrs -against Judge Pratt, as all of 

### plaintiffs allegations stem from her decision on Mr.

### coleman'i 20t g

### ctai, in

### the District Court forthe Southern District of Indiana.

Plaintiff also refers

### to "Everett Mckinley Dirksen," who 

### allegedly.made several 

### of false 

### statements." Although plaintiff fails to specify, who ,,Everett-M"ftinl"y', is, as noted 

### above, after examining plaintiff's prior litigation 

### history

### atthe united 

### siates court of Appeals 

### for the seventh 

### circuit, it 

### appearl that plaintiif has confused 

### the name of the 

### courthouse 

### building, named after former United 

### states senator, Evereft McKinley Dirksen, which is

### the location ofthefederal District and 

### circuit couris, with

### the name 

### of the individual who dismissed plaintiff's appealfor failure 

### to pay 

### the docketing

### fee. see .o10919r 

### lismissat in coteman y.J..Evereft Liqht 

### career 

### ctr., No. 13-1509 

### lzin bir. rra"y 

### 23,2013). In

### fact,

### the order 

### dismissinglraritiffsTbl3 appear 

### at the seventn circuit was issued by Desiree 

### st. German, Depuiy 

### clerk of

### the united states court ofAppears for the Seventh Circuit, and not ,,Everett 

### Mikinley."


### The only proper 

### forum 

### in which praintiff courd appear 

### the decision issued by Judge Pratt of

### the United States District Court for 

### the Southern District 

### of Indiana was 

### the United States Court 

### of Appeals 

### for the Seventh 

### Circuit. lt iswell-setiled 

### that this 99yrt_ hgs nojurisdiction 

### to review decisions issued by

### federal District

### courts. see za 

### u s c..s.1291 (2012) ("The courts of appeals

. . .shali have jurisdiction of appeals from 

### allfinal decisions 

### ofthe district courts 

### of

### the United 

### states.



### .

# . "); see

## ari6'Jrshra, United 

### states, 17 F.3d 

### 378,380 (Fed.

### cir. 199a) (,,[T]he 

### courtof'FeGr;-r 

# cr"ffiii", not have

### jurisdiction

### to review 

### the decisions 

### of district courts 

### or the clerks

### of district courts_ 

### relaling 

### to proceedings before 

### those courts."); 

### schrader 

### v. united states, 103 Fed.

### cr. 92,-97 (2012) (noting 

### thatthis court 

### does not have 

### lurisdEtioi-ioGview 

# te decisions 

### of a federal district court" (citing Joshua 

### v. United states 

### , 17 F.3d 

### at 380)). Moreover, 

### as discussed above, plaintiff 

### atreioylGo'an appeal 

### to the seventh circuit, butthat appealwas dismissed and 

### a mandate'was issued ;,forfailure 

### to timety pay tne lequired d_ocketing

### fee." see coleman v. J. Everett Lioht 

### career 

### ctr., No.

### ts_t5dg. 

### rhe 

# SeventhCircuita|sodeniedp|mreca||thecourt,s mandate. similarly, 

### the court had arready denied 

### praintiffs motion 

### to 

### p.cu"J 

## 6

## torr" pauperis aswell as denied-two motions by plaintifi 

### tovacate 

### the couri,s Rprit t-a,

### zots order instructing the plaintiff to pay a docketing fee, or risk having the appeai 

### Ji#isseo.

11

### The United States Court 

### of Federal Claims 

### also does not have

### the authority to

review 

### the decisions 

### of

### the United 

### states courts of Appeals 

### forthe seventh circuit, 

### which can only 

### be appealed

### tothe United States Supreme 

### Court. See

### 28 U.S.C. S 1254 (20'12). As indicated in28 U.S.C. 

### g 1254:
Cases inthe courts of appeals may be reviewed bythe Supreme Court by thefollowing methods: (1) By writ of certiorari granted uponthe petition of any party to any civil or criminal case, before or after rendition ofjudgment or decree; (2) By certification at any time by a court of appeals of any question of law 

### in any civil or criminal case 

### asto which instructions 

### are desired, ano 

### upon 

### such certification 

## the Supreme 

### Court 

### may 

## give binding instructions or require the entire record to be sent up for decision of the entlre matter in controversy.

28 U.S.C. 

### g 1254 (emphasis in originat).

To the extent 

### that Mr. 

### coleman istrying

### to allege that Judge Tanya pratt or any government official committed civilfraud or atortious 

### act by making 

### 'false statementsJ' 

### the Tucker Act. expressly excludes 

### tort claims, including 

### ihose c6mmitted 

### by federal officials, 

### from thejurisdiction 

### of

### the United 

### states 

### court 

### of Federal 

### claims. see 2g 

### 9,9 C 

### -9 M91(a)(1); see atso Keene Corp. 

### v. United States, 508 U.S. 

### 200,214 

### (gg3); Rjc-kb Mushroom

### serv.. Inc.-v. United

### states,

### szt r^go 

### at tg+3; Alves

### v. united States, 13-3 F

### 3d 1454, 14s9 (Fed. 

### cir. 1998); Brown

### v. United

### states, 

### 1o-sF3aGz, 623 (Fed. 

## CL! rylg denied (Fed. 

### Cir. 1997); Gotden 

### pacjarrcoro v. United 

### States, 15 F.3d 1066, 1070 n.8 (Fed. 

### cir.),.tqlrg denied, en banc duqqestion decl''ned (Fed. 

### cir.), cert. 

### denied,513 U.S.961 (1994);gejlersr-_Udled Slates, 

## ito reO. Cl. OZ oo (ZorS);ratick

### v. United

### states, 109 

### Fed

### c|. s51,558, aff'd, 

### s41 F. 

### App'x 1000 (Fed.

## cir.2or3r Hampgl v..United States, 

### 97Fed. Ct.235,238, 

### affd,429 F.App'x 995 

### (Fed. Cn.2O11t, gert. 

### dismissed, 132

### s. ct. i105 (2012); 

### woodson 

### v. United States, 

### ds 

### rea. cl.640, 

### 9!9 Lzo9e);

# @, zo reo. 

### cr. 

## r, a (zooo)r appeatdismissed, Z_3-6

# f. App'x 

### 615 (Fed. Cir.), reh'o denied (Fed. Cir.), cert. d941Crl,5s2 

### US. 1OSO !2.097);

### +91:U!1cd-S!s!cs_ 

### I 72 

### Fed Ct. 284, 

### zso (zo0OI 

### Zh"norinq u.

# Unt

, 

# !1r.9 ct.732,73e, affd,204 F.App,x 885 (Fed. 

### cir.),

# iqb!-@lF-d .-.2ooq. Therefore, this court does not havejurisdiction over 

### plaintiffGivifiE'luO ortort claims.
To the extent plaintiff istryingto allege aviolation of his "civil rights as a citizen," 

### or requests "a correct ruling as 

### well due by my civil rights,"

### the united states 

### court of Federal Claims lacksjurisdiction 

### to hear

### claimi alleging deprivation of civil rights under 

### color of

# ]"* scc Etkins

### v. United 

### states,229 

### ct. cl.607,60s (1981) 

### (.[w]e do not 

### havejurisdiction over claim_s 

### based upon allegedviolations

### ofthe civit rigtris taws."; (citation omitted); see arso

### Weste{J--u-0i1edsh&s, 105 Fed.

### cr. 99, 109 

### (zorz); t'ti^i v. United

### states, 104 Fed. 

### ct.278,284 (2012), 

### affo, ss+ F.App'x 930 (Fed. 

### cir. 2013):

12Hanes 

### v. United 

### States,44 Fed. 

### Cl.441,449 (1999),

### aft'd,243 F.3d 

### 562 (Fed. Cir.),

reh'q denied (2000); Sanders v. United 

### States,34 Fed. 

### C|.75,80 (1995), aff'd, 104 F.3d 376 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q denied, in banc suqqestion declined (Fed. 

### Cir. 1996) (the general 

### civil rights 

### claims alleged 

### are not based 

### on any money-mandating provisions, 

### and do not give rise

### to liability for 

### the United States), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 831, reh'q denied, 

### 522 U.S. 1036 

### (1997); Blassinqame 

### v. United 

### States,33 Fed. 

### C|.504,505, 

### affd,73 F.3d 379 (Fed. Cir. 1995), reh'o denied (Fed. Cir.), cert. 

### denied,517 U.S. 1237 (1996).



### In sum, even considering 

### plaintiffs pro 

### ge status, and drawing

### all reasonable inferences 

### in plaintiffs favor, 

### the plaintiff has not alleged any claims within 

### this court's 

### jurisdiction. Because 

### the current complaint 

### is dismissed 

### for lack 

### of subject matter jurisdiction, 

### the court 

### will not examine defendant's arguments regarding resjudicata or failure 

### to state 

### a claim pursuant 

### to RCFC 

### 12(bX6). See, e.q., Vandesande 

### v. United States, 

### 94 Fed. Cl. 

### 624, 636 n.8 (2010) ("Because

### the Court 

### finds it lacks jurisdiction 

### over Plaintiff's 

### claim, 

## it is not necessary

### to address Defendant's assertions 

### of res 

### judicata and collateral estoppel."), 

### rev'd 

### on other qrounds, 

### 673 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Simmons

### v. United 

### States,71 Fed.

### Cl. 188, 189 ("Because 

### the Court dismisses 

### this case 

### for lack 

### of subject-matterjurisdiction, 

### it does not address 

### the Government's alternative motion 

### for summary 

### judgment, affirmative 

### defenses, nor

### the merits 

### of the Plaintiff's claims."), aopeal dismissed, 189 F.App'x 957 (Fed. 

### Cir.2006).

CONCLUSION


### For

### the reasons discussed above,

### the court lacksjurisdiction

## to entertain plaintiff's 

### claims. Defendant's motion

### to dismiss is GRANTED 

### and plaintiff's complaint is 

### DISMISSED. Because plaintiff previously hasfiled three civil actions infederal courts which have been dismissedfor failure 

### to state 

### a claim, plaintiff is barred from filing any 

### future complaints 

### in forma pauperis inthis 

### court. The Clerk

### ofthe Court shall enter JUDGMENT consistent 

### withthis Order 

### and shall reject 

### anyfuture complaints 

### filed by this plaintiff inthis court without the requisite filing fee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.



### BLANK HORN 

### Judge