oRlGlltAt

l|ntbe @nfteU btuttg @ourt of /p[ersl @lsfms

No. 13-530C

This Opinion Will Not Be Published in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Reporter Because It

Does Not Add Significantly to the Body of Law.

(Filed: January 14, 2014) FILED

JAN 14 2014

'gSi8fi8h?fi'

JEFFREY NATHAN SCHIRRIPA,

Relator for the United States of America

Plaintifl

UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

OPINION and ORDER

On July 3 l, 2013, Mr. Schinipa filed a complaint in which he "petition[ed] the Court of

Federal Claims for the Qui Tam reward," to which he claimed entitlement under 31 U.S.C. $

3730(d)(2). Attached to the complaint are a variety of exhibits dealing with patents,

counterintelligence and medical research. Also attached to the complaint are what appear to be

various filings in a prior qui tam action filed in the United States District Court for the District of

New Jersey. On September 30,2013, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under RCFC

12(bX1) for lack ofjurisdiction. On January 14,2014, plaintiff filed his response to the motion

(by leave of court). The court deems further briefing and argument on this motion unnecessary.

Deciding a motion to dismiss "starts with the complaint, which must be well-pleaded in

that it must state the necessary elements ofthe plaintiff s claim, independent ofany defense that

may be interposed." Holleyv. UnitedStates,l24F.3d1462,1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations

omitted); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544,555 (2007). The plaintiff must

establish that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over its claims. Reynolds v. Army & Air

Force Exch. !erv.,846F.2d746,748 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Hansen v. United States,65 Fed. Cl.76,

94 (2005). This court recognizes that plaintiffis actingpro se before this court, and thus the

court will hold the form of plaintiff s submissions to a less stringent standard than those drafted

by an attomey. See Reedv. United States,23 Cl.Ct.517,521 (1991) (citing Estelle v. Gamble,

429 U.5.97 (1976)). Having reviewed plaintiff s complaint and the parties' filings, this court,

however, is certain that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the claims that plaintiff raises.
With very limited exceptions, the jurisdictional statutes goveming this court $ant it

authority only to issue judgments for money against the United States and then, only when they

are grounded in a contract, a money-mandating statute, or the "takings clause" ofthe Fifth

Amendment. seeunitedstatesv.Testan,424u.s.392,397-98(1976);28 U.S.C.$ 1491. Mr.

Schinipa seeks to enforce a claim against the United States under the False Claims Act, 31

U.S.C. $$ 3729-3732. While the False Claims Act "provides a framework for detecting fraud

against the govemment," LeBlanc v. United States,50 F.3d 1025, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1995), this

court does not have jurisdiction to consider plaintiff s complaint in this regard. This court

concurs with the holding in Grffin v. United States,96 Fed. Cl. 1, 8 (2010), that "monetary

recovery fiom the govemment" under the False Claims Act "is only authorizedfor qui tam

plaintiffs," pursuant to 31 U.S.C. $ 3730(d), and such actions may only be heard in United States

district courts, not in the Court ofFederal Claims. See Meschkow v. United States,109 Fed. Cl.

637,645 (2013); Schweitzer v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 592, 595-96 (2008); see also LeBlanc,

50 F.3d at 1031.

The court has reviewed various other points made by plaintiffin the various attachments

to his complaint and sees no other basis for the court to exercise jurisdiction over this case.

Accordingly, the court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims. Based on this

conclusion, the Clerk is hereby ordered to dismiss the complaint under RCFC 12(bxl).

IT IS SO ORDERED.