Jfn tbe W:nitell ~tates QCourt of jf elleral QClaitns 

No. 19-1304C 

(Filed February 28, 2020) 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

* 

* 

WALTER L. ALLEN, * 

* 

Plaintiff, * 

* 

V. * 

* 

THE UNITED STATES, * 

* 

Defendant. * 

* 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

WOLSKI, Senior Judge. 

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 of this interaction is unclear, but it appears that a USPS employee 

refused to accept letters for mailing. Mister Allen requests one hundred "million 

zillion" dollars, and the termination of certain USPS employees who were involved 

in this incident. The government has moved to dismiss the case for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(l) of the Rules of the United States Court of 

Federal Claims (RCFC). Plaintiff has not filed a response. For the reasons stated 

below, the motion is GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On August 27, 2019, Mr. Allen filed a complaint in this court prose, 

complaining about his treatment at a USPS office in Brooklyn, New Yark. Com pl. 

at 1. Apparently, on January 2, 2019, a USPS employee declined to accept letters 

for mailing, due to her inability to weigh them at that time because of a lack of 

sufficient staffing. Id. Plaintiff argued 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 complaint in this court, now seeking one 

hundred "million zillion" dollars and the termination of the USPS employees 

responsible for his displeasure. Compl. at 1. Defendant has moved to dismiss the 

complaint, arguing that none of the allegations in the complaint state a claim 

within our subject-matter jurisdiction. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss. at 1 (citing, inter 

alia, 28 U.S.C. § 149l(a)(l)). Plaintiff did not respond to the motion to dismiss. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

Under RCFC 12(b)(l), this court must dismiss claims that do not fall within 

its subject-matter jurisdiction. When considering a motion to dismiss a case for lack 

of subject-matter jurisdiction, courts will accept as true all factual allegations the 

non-movant made and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to 

that party. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Airport Rd. 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 of subject-matter jurisdiction, a court must "view the alleged 

facts in the complaint as true, and if the facts reveal any reasonable basis upon 

which the non-movant may prevail, dismissal is inappropriate"); CBY Design 

Builders v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 303, 325 (2012). 

While a prose plaintiff'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's jurisdiction. See, e.g., Henke v. United States, 

60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995). It is incumbent on the plaintiff to properly invoke 

the court's jurisdiction by properly alleging a breach of contract by 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's prose status does not relieve him of the obligation to demonstrate 

jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See McNutt v. Gen. Motors 

Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936) (explaining the plaintiff's 

responsibility for showing that the claim falls within the court's jurisdiction); 

Henke, 60 F.3d at 799 (noting that a plaintiff's status does not excuse defects in the 

complaint); Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 

1988) (stating that the burden of proof for establishing jurisdiction is by a 

preponderance of the 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 of Mr. 

Allen's letters for mailing, which resulted in his mailing them less than thirty 

. 2 . 
minutes later at different office. Compl. at 1. The Court is not aware of any legal 

theory that could support recovery under these facts. Plaintiff has failed to allege 

either the existence of a contract with the United States or the violation of a moneymandating provision of federal law, which are generally the requirements to 

establish a claim within our jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 149l(a); Mitchell, 463 

U.S. at 216-17. Plaintiff has not identified any contractual right, or federal law or 

regulation, which would entitle him to money damages for the inconvenience of 

having to take his mail to a second USPS office before it could be mailed. 

Although it is not clear, in the portion of his complaint relating to the relief 

sought, plaintiff seems to suggest that he 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 of government procurements, such as claims that a 

solicitation for offers is improper or that the government made an arbitrary or 

unlawful contract award. See 28 U.S.C. § 149l(b). This includes cases involving 

"any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a 

proposed procurement." Id. While the scope of this jurisdiction may be very broad, 

it is nonetheless limited to federal procurements, which means the federal 

government's "process of acquiring property 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 attempt by the government to obtain services, but rather his attempt to obtain 

services from the government, it obviously cannot come within our bid protest 

jurisdiction. Moreover, even as a bid protest, it would suffer from the defect placing 

the case outside our general subject-matter jurisdiction---Mr. Allen's failure to 

identify any statute or regulation that may have been violated in his unsatisfactory 

encounter with the one USPS office. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the government's motion to dismiss this case 

for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, under RCFC 12(b)(l), is GRANTED. The 

Clerk shall close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

- 3 -