# Jfn tbe W:nitell ~tates QCourt ofjf 

# elleral QClaitns
No. 19-1304C (Filed February 28, 2020) NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

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

### * * 

### * * WALTER L. ALLEN, 

### * * Plaintiff, 

### * * V. 

### * * THE UNITED STATES, 

### * * Defendant. 

### * 

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

MEMORANDUM OPINIONAND ORDER WOLSKI, SeniorJudge. Plaintiff, Walter L. Allen, asserts a claim based on an apparently unsatisfactory interaction with his local United States Postal Service (USPS) office. The exact nature ofthis interaction is unclear, but it appears that a USPS employee refused to accept letters for mailing. MisterAllen requests one hundred "million zillion" dollars, and the termination ofcertain USPS employees who were involved in this incident. The government has moved to dismiss the case for lack ofsubjectmatterjurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(l) ofthe Rules ofthe United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). Plaintiffhas not filed a response. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED and the complaintis DISMISSED.
I. BACKGROUND
On August 27, 2019, Mr. Allen filed a complaintin this courtprose, complaining about his treatment at a USPS office in Brooklyn, New Yark. Compl. at 1. Apparently, on January 2, 2019, a USPS employee declined to accept letters for mailing, due to her inabilityto weigh them at that time because ofa lack of sufficient staffing. 

### Id. Plaintiffargued with her and then took his mail to another post office, where it was accepted. 

### Id. He followed up with a complaint to the USPS headquarters and received an apology for his treatment. 

### Id. at 1-2. The USPS,however, declined to pay him the "900 zillion" dollars he sought in that complaint. See Ex. 1 to Compl. He thus filed a complaintin this court, now seeking one hundred "million zillion" dollars and the termination ofthe USPS employees responsible for his displeasure. Compl. at 1. Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that none ofthe allegations in the complaint state a claim within our subject-matterjurisdiction. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss. at 1 (citing, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. 

### § 149l(a)(l)). Plaintiffdid not respond to the motion to dismiss.


### II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard ofReview

Under RCFC 12(b)(l), this court must dismiss claims that do not fall within its subject-matterjurisdiction. When considering a motion to dismiss a case for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction, courts will accept as true all factual allegations the non-movant made and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to thatparty. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); AirportRd.Assocs., Ltd. v. United States, 866 F.3d 1346, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Pixton v. B & B Plastics, Inc., 291 F.3d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2002)) (stating that on a motion to dismiss a case for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction, a court must "view the alleged facts in the complaint as true, and ifthe facts reveal any reasonable basis upon which the non-movant may prevail, dismissal is inappropriate"); CBYDesign Builders v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 303, 325 (2012).

While aproseplaintiff's filings are to be liberally construed, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), this lenient standard cannot spare from dismissal claims which fall outside this court'sjurisdiction. See, e.g., Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Itis incumbent on the plaintiffto properly invoke the court'sjurisdictionby properly alleging a breach ofcontractby the federal government or identifying a money-mandating law which was allegedly violated by the government. See United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216-17 (1983). A plaintiff'sprose status does not relieve him ofthe obligation to demonstrate jurisdictionby a preponderance ofthe evidence. See McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. ofInd., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936) (explaining the plaintiff's responsibility for showing that the claim falls within the court'sjurisdiction); Henke, 60 F.3d at 799 (noting that a plaintiff's status does not excuse defects in the complaint); Reynolds v. Army &AirForce Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (stating that the burden ofprooffor establishingjurisdiction is by a preponderance ofthe evidence).


### B. Analysis
The complaint fails to articulate any claim within this court's subject-matter jurisdiction. 

### It seems that, at most, one USPS office refused to accept some ofMr. Allen's letters for mailing, which resulted in his mailing them less than thirty

. 2

.minutes later at different office. Compl. at 1. The Courtis not aware ofany legal theorythat could supportrecovery under these facts. Plaintiffhas failed to allege eitherthe existence ofa contract with the United Statesor the violation ofa moneymandatingprovision offederal law, which are generally the requirements to establish a claim withinourjurisdiction. 

### See 28 U.S.C. § 149l(a);

### Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 216-17. Plaintiffhas not identified any contractualright, or federal law or regulation, which would entitle him to money damages for the inconvenience of havingto take his mail to a second USPS office before it could be mailed. Although itis not clear, in the portion ofhis complaintrelating to the relief sought, plaintiffseems to suggest thathe has filed a bid protest case. 

### See Compl. at 3. Under 28 U.S.C. 

### § 149l(b), our court is empowered to hear certain cases objecting to the conduct ofgovernmentprocurements, such as claims that a solicitation for offers is improper orthat the government made an arbitrary or unlawful contract award. 

### See 28 U.S.C. 

### § 149l(b). This includes casesinvolving "any alleged violation ofstatute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement." 

### Id. While the scope ofthisjurisdiction may be verybroad, itis nonetheless limited to federal procurements, which means the federal government's "process ofacquiringproperty or services." 

### Distributed Sols., Inc. v. United States, 539 F.3d 1340, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting what was then 41 U.S.C. 

### §403(2) and is now 41 U.S.C. 

### § 111). As Mr. Allen's matter does not involve
an attemptby the government to obtain services, butrather 

### his attempt to obtain services

### from the government, it obviously cannot come within ourbid protest jurisdiction. Moreover, even as a bid protest, it would suffer from the defectplacing the case outside our general subject-matterjurisdiction---Mr. Allen's failure to identify any statute orregulation that mayhave beenviolatedinhis unsatisfactory encounter with the one USPS office.


### III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the government's motion to dismiss this case for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction, under RCFC 12(b)(l), is 

### GRANTED. The Clerk shall close the case.


### IT IS SO ORDERED.



### - 3

-