# 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### Will Not Be Published in the U.S.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 

### Claimsfor 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 

### tothe 

### complaint arewhat 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 statethe 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 ssubmissions

### 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 issuejudgments 

### for money against the 

### United States and then, 

### only when they aregrounded 

### 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 underthe False Claims 

### Act, 31 

### U.S.C. $$

### 3729-3732. While the False 

### ClaimsAct "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" underthe 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); seealso 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.