# 7!n tr:e@n i

# te!

# ",uQ,F&#u[ffiJ-! ersr @rs i

## mg No. 18-112C 

### (Filed: January 26, 

### 2018) 

### NOT FOR 

### PUBLICATION 

# FILED
JAN 

### 2 6 2018 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 

### MITCHELL T.

### TAEBEL,

Plaintiff,

THE 

### UNITED STATES, Pro Se 

### Complaint; Sua Sponte Dismissal 

### for Want

## of Jurisdiction; RCFC 12(hX3).

Defendant.



### ORDER The 

### following items are 

### cunently before the court in this 

### matter: 

## (l) the 

### complaint of pro se

### plaintiff Mitchell Taebel, ECF 

### No. l ,

### filed on January 23, 2018; and, 

### (2) 

### plaintiff sapplication to proceed 

### in forma oauperis, ECF 

### No. 2,

### fied January 23, 

### 2018. Because the 

### court lacks

### jurisdiction over 

### plaintiff sclaims, the court must dismiss this case pursuant to 

### Rule 

### l2(hX3) of the Rules

### ofthe United States Court 

### ofFederal Claims 

### (RCFC). See 

### RCFC 12(hX3) 

### ("If the court determines at any time that 

### it lacks subject-matter 

### jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the 

### action."). 

# I. Background 

### Plaintiffls complaint statesthat 

### it is a

### petition that "raises 

### constitutional violations by the 

### city [Los Angeles]to the U.S. 

### Court." Compl., ECF 

### No. 

### I at 

### 1. Indeed, the 

### complaint names the 

### City of Los Angeles as the defendant in

### this

### suit. 

## Id. The one-paragraph 

### complaint alleges that local 

### police and the 

### district attorney

### violated 

### plaintiff s

### rights. 

## Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in the amount 

### of $500,000,000. Id. 

# IL Pro Se 

### Litigants The court acknowledges that pro se 

### plaintiffs are not expected to frame issues

### with theprecisionofacommonlawpleading. Rochev.USPS,828F.2dl555, l558(Fed.Cir.



## F\-\.. \R_

# \r3 rssro'

### \5.:\s

# tsSS:'\BJ\1S\)b

### 1987). Therefore, 

### plaintiff scomplaint has been reviewed 

### carefully to ascertain whether,

given the most lavorable reading, 

### it supports

### jurisdiction in this court. 

# IL Jurisdiction 

### "A court may and should raisethe question 

### of its

### jurisdiction sua sponte at any 

### time 

### it appears in 

### doubt." Arctic Corner. 

### Inc. v. 

### United States, 845 F.2d 

### 999, 1000 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1988) 

### (citation 

### omitted). TheTucker 

### Act delineates this court's 

### jurisdiction. 28 

### U.S.C. $

## l49l (2012). That statute 

### "confersjurisdiction uponthe Court 

### ofFederal Claims over the specified categories 

### ofactions brought against the 

### United States." Fisher v. 

### United States ,402 F

### .3d 1167 

### , 1172 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2005) (en banc) 

### (citations omitted). These 

### include money damage claims against the federal govemment founded upon the 

### Constitution, an act 

### ofCongress, a regulation promulgated 

### by an executive department, any express

### or implied contract

### with the 

### United States, or any 

### claim for liquidated or unliquidated damages 

### in cases not sounding in

### tort. Id. (citing 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1a91(a)(1)). 

# III. Analysis 

### Plaintiffls complaint' alleges 

### civil rights 

### violations by the anesting 

### police officers and the 

### district attorney 

### in Los

### Angeles. 

### It is

### well settled that 

### violations 

### of constitutional rights, such asthe 

### rights to due process and equal 

### protection, do 

### notfall 

### within this court's 

### jurisdiction. Brown v. 

### United States, 105 

### F.3d 621,624 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1997). Further, the 

### only proper defendant in this court isthe 

### United States. 

### E&, United Statesv. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) 

### (citations 

### omitted). Because

### plaintiff seeks 

### relief based on 

### civil rights 

### violations committed 

### by local 

### police officers and a

### district attorney, his claims are not

### within the

### jurisdiction of this 

### court. 

### E.g, Jefferson v. 

### United States, 104 Fed.

### Cl.8l,88-89 (2012).



# I The court notesthat

### this is

### plaintiff s

### fourth complaint 

### filed over the last

### two weeks and assigned to the undersigned

### judge. SeeTaebel 

### v. United States, Case Nos. 

### 063C, 18-064C and 

### 18-108C. The

### complaint in this matter asserts, more 

### or less, the same 

### constitutional violations as those set

### forth in his three earlier cases. The

### only material differences in 

### plaintiff s cases arethe arrest described 

### in eachsuit and the amount 

### in damages

### claimed. The court has dismissed the complaints in Case Nos. 

### l8-063C, 18-064C, and 18-108C 

### by separate orders 

### onthis date. 

### l8-

# IV. Conclusion

The 

### complaint in this case must be dismissed.2 

### Plaintiff sapplication to proceed 

### in forma pauperis is

### GRANTED for the 

### limited purpose 

### of determining this 

### court's 

### jurisdiction. The 

### Clerk 

### of Court is directed to 

### ENTERjudgment for defendant 

### DISMISSING plaintiff s

### complaintfor lack 

### ofjurisdiction, without prejudice, pursuant to 

### RCFC 

### l2(hX3). Additionally, the 

### clerk's office is directedto 

### return any

### future

### filings not in compliance 

### with this court's rules to 

### plaintiff, unfiled, without further order of the court. Further, because 

### ptaintiff has 

### repetitively 

### filed complaints 

### which needlessly consume the resources of the court,3 the court enters the 

### following anti-filing injunction:



### Mr. Taebel 

### is immediately 

### ENJOINED from 

### filing any new 

### complaints 

### with this Court 

### without 

### first obtaining leave 

### from the 

### Chief Judge

### of the 

### United States 

### Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims 

### to do so. 

### Any motion 

### for leave

### to 

### file must 

### include as 

### an attachment 

### a

### full complaintthat meets 

### all of the requirements 

### of RCFC 8; in 

### particular the 

### complaint must 

### identi$ the source 

### of law supporting 

### this court's 

### jurisdiction over the claims asserted. Thus, the 

### Clerk's Office is directed to 

### reject all future complaints 

### from 

### Mr. Taebel unless 

### filed by leave 

### of the 

### ChiefJudge. 

### IT IS SO

### ORDERED.



# 2 The court has considered transfer 

### of this suitto another federal court, but declines to do so because 

### civil rights claims 

### in Califomia are subject to aone-year statute

## of limitations, a period 

### which has run onthe claims asserted 

### here. See. e.s., Silva 

### v. Crain, 169 F.3d 608, 610 

### (9th

### Cir. 1999). 

# 3 In addition to the cases assignedto the undersigned 

### judge, 

### Mr. Taebel

### filed trvo cases atthe end 

### ofDecember 2017, Case 

### Nos. 17-2034C and 

### l8-25C, the latter of 

### which was dismissed

### for lack 

### of iurisdiction.