# ORIGIt\!AT

llntllt @nrtetr

# bttttg @ourt of

# fr[ersl @lsims No. 14-287C 

### (Filed: July24,2014) 

### (NOTTO BE 

### PUBLISHED)
*'t

### ***1.**1.+*rr,t,l*'t'*'t * +* * +* **:t * +* * * *

### *



### UNITED STATES, SUSAN 

### HERBERT. ) ) ) 

## Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) 

## Defendant. ) ) 

### JUI.2

## 4 2014 

### U.S. COURT 

### OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

*{.,1.,********,i.*,}:1.:1.*'1.:1.**,1 't* *,i.:} *** *** *

Susan Herbert, 

### pro se, Jacksonville, 

### FL.
David 

### A. Levitt, Trial Attomey, Commercial 

### Litigation Branch, 

### Civil Division, United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, D.C., 

### for defendant. 

### With him on the briefs were Stuart F. 

### Delery, Assistant 

### Attomey General, 

### Civil Division, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., 

### Director, Marian E. 

### Sullivan, Assistant 

### Director, and Steven J. 

### Gillingham, Assistant 

### Director, Commercial 

### Litigation Branch, 

### Civil Division, United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, D.C. 

### OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Judge.
On

### April | |

### ,2014, plaintiff, Susan Herbert, 

### filed a

### complaint alleging abridgment 

### of her 

### rights in connection 

### with an action proceeding 

### in another 

### court. Ms. Herbert amended her 

### complaint on 

### May 19, 

### 2014. See

### Am. Compl., ECF 

### No.

## 5.' The govemment has responded to
rThe amended 

### complaint was

### timely filed under 

### Rule 15(aX1XB) of the Rules

### ofthe Court 

### of Federal

### Claims 

### ("RCFC"). While Ms. Herbert does 

### not consider that her second 

### complaint is an "amended 

### complaint," see 

### Pl.'s Resp. 

### in Opp'n. to 

### Def.'s Mot.to Dismiss ("P1.'s 

### Opp'n") at43, ECF 

### No. 7, the rules 

### ofthis court 

### allow only "a complaint" to be

### filed in asingle 

### case. RCFC 

### 7(a)(l). Accordingly, the court

### will treat 

### Ms. Herbert's second 

### complaint as an amended 

### complaint, which is consistent

### with the manner 

### in which she

### filed it. Ms. Herbeft names 58 other

### plaintiffs. See

### Am. Compl. Attach. 

### l, at

### 2. Ms. Herbert is appearing before 

### this court 

### in a

### pro se capacity, and thus she can

### only represent 

### herselfor 

# FILEDthe amended 

### complaint 

### with a 

### motion to dismiss 

### for lack 

### of subject matter 

### jurisdiction pursuant



### to RCFC 

### l2(bX1). Def.'s Mot.to Dismiss 

### ("Mot. to 

### Dismiss"), ECF 

### No. 

### 6. Ms. Herbert 

### filed an 

### oppositiontothis 

### motion on 

### Jdy 7,2014, see 

### Pl.'s Opp'n, ECF 

### No. 7, and the govemment replied on

### July 18, 2014, see 

### Def.'s Reply 

### to Pl.'s Resp. 

### in Opp'n 

### ("Def.'s Reply"), ECF 

### No. 9. 

### Accordingly, the matter has been

### fully briefed and is ready

### for disposition.' 

### BACKGROUND
Ms. Herbert has 

### previously 

### filed in various courts a number 

### of complaints nearly 

### identical to this one,

### all 

### ofwhich have been

### dismissed. See, e.g., Order 

### of Dismissal, Clemons v. {Jnited 

### States,No. 13-162 (Fed. 

### Cl. Mar. 15, 2013); Order, 

### Herbert v.

### Obema,No.11-1869, 

### 201I U.S. 

### Dist. 

### LEXIS 122644 

### (D. 

### Minn. Aug. 

### 24,2011) (dismissing 

### complaint 

### ior failure to state a

### claim for which 

### reliefcan be granted); Order, 

### Herbert v. United States, 

### No' 3:07-cv-964- 

### J-33T8M,2007 U.S. Dist. 

### LEXIS 88787 

### (M.D. Fla. 

### Nov. 1,2007) (dismissing 

### claim

### for frivolousness and 

### for failure to state a

### claim upon

### which relief can be granted); Order, I-lerbert v. United 

### States,No.3:07-cv-00'776-J-l6MCR, 2007 U.S. 

### Dist. 

### LEXIS 72022 

### (MD. Fla. Sept. 27, 2007) (dismissing 

### claim as

### tiivolous).
Inthis 

### iteration of her 

### complaint, Ms. Herbert alleges claims that appear 

### to stem 

### from what she describes asthe Supreme 

### Court's failure toforce the 

### Solicitor General 

### to respond to her challenge 

### to a Supreme 

### Court case. See

### Am. Compl. 

### !l!f 1,

### 5. She interprets the 

### Solicitor General's 

### failure to respond as a procedural 

### "default" by the govemment 

### to her challenge, thus 

### requiring a decision 

### in her

### favor. 1d.fl 2.


### Ms. 

### Herbe('s three central claims are

## (l) that her 

### rights, and the rights 

### of 

### all women, 

### including the 

### "Birthright," have been

### violated, by denying her substantive due process in the courts, (2) that a regulatory 

### taking occurred 

### byforcing 

### "the [s]tate courts

### to act as 

### lflederal courts 

### of law" in denying her 

### "entry 

### to [the Supreme 

### Court] or any other federal 

### court in person," and 

### (3) that 

### "[b]y confiscating and refusing 

### to

### file the 

### Motion to Compel [t]he U[nited 

### ] S[tates] 

### [t]o Respond" and tampering 

### with the Supreme 

### Court's docket, the govemment has exacted a 

### physicaltaking against 

### her.Am. Compl. at 

### 18. Ms. Herbert 

### further alleges thatthe 

### Court's failure to enforce her challenge is due to the 

### Court's and 

### society's prejudice against women, id. 

### aI4, andthat the 

### Court's failure to act can also be attributed to the 

### illegal and covert actions

### of the 

### Court's clerks, 

### id. at 5.

members

### of her immediate 

### family before the 

### court. ,See 

### RCFC 

### 83.1(aX3)' Consequently, 

### all other named 

### plaintiffs are removed 

### from this action.
2Ms. Herbert asserts that she never received a copy 

### ofthe 

### govemment's motion to 

### dismiss. PI.'s Opp'n at

### 4. The govemment explained that 

### it mailed a copy 

### of the 

### motion to dismiss to the address listed on 

### Ms. Herbert's filings, but 

### it was retumed 

### tothe govemment due 

### to an 

### "insufficient address." 

### Def.'s Reply at2-3, 

### Attach. 

### 1. Under 

### RCFC 5(a)(1)(D), a

### written motion, such asthe 

### government's motion to dismiss, must be served on the opposing party. 

### Mailing the 

### motion to the 

### party's last 

### known address

### fulfills the requirement 

### for service. RCFC 

### s(bx2)(c).

### Interms 

### of 

### relief, Ms. Herbert asks

### for damages

### to compensate her

### for the taking 

### of

property, a 

### "hearing in person," an 

### injunction 

### "prohibiting [d]efendant[] from collecting tribute disguised 

### asjust taxation

. . . 

### [and]from claiming that 

### [it] possess[es]

### jurisdiction over [her], and an 

### injunction prohibiting Barack Obama

### from acting as

### if he is the 

### rightful, 

### lanful President," as 

### well as a 

### "declaration that women and 

### their children are part 

### of mankind [and] so are fp]ersons 

### with equal 

### rights." Am. Compl. at 

### 19. Ms. Herbert appearsto beseeking $2 

### billion in damages. See

### Am. Compl. at 13. 

### STANDARDS FOR 

### DECISION
Ms. Herbert premises this court's 

### jurisdiction over her claims on the 

### TuckerAct, 28 

### U.S.C. S I491


## . Am. Compl. at I


## . The

### Tucker

### Act grants this 

### cou( 'Jurisdiction to render 

### judgment upon any 

### claim against the 

### United Statesfounded either uponthe 

### Constitution, or any 

### Act ofCongress or any 

### regulation of an executive department, 

### or upon any express 

### or implied contract 

### with the 

### United States, 

### orfor liquidated or 

### unliquidated damages 

### in cases 

### not sounding 

### in

### tort." 28 U.S.C. 

### $

## l49l(a)(l). The

### Tucker

### Act is a

### waiver 

### of sovereign 

### immunity and enables
a

### plaintilTto suethe 

### United States

### fbr monetary damages 

### in certain 

### circumstances. United States
v. 

### Mitchell,463 U.S.206,212 

### (1983). The 

### Act 

### itseli however, does not create asubstantive 

### right to monetary 

### relief from this 

### court. United Statesv. Testan, 424 U .5. 392, 398 (1976); see also 

### Martinez v. United 

### States,333 F.3d 1295,1302-03 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2003) (en 

### banc). 

### "A substantive 

### right must be

### found 

### in some other source 

### of 

### law." Mitchell,463 U.S.

### at216. To meet the

### jurisdictional requirements 

### ofthe Tucker 

### Act, the 

### plaintiff must 

### point to an independent, substantive source 

### of law that mandates payment 

### from the 

### United Statesfor the 

### injury suffered. Testan,424 U.S. at400.
The 

### "court must satisfy 

### itselfthat it has

### jurisdiction to hear and decide a case before proceeding to the 

### merits." Hardie v. United 

### States,367 F.3d 1288, 1290 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2004) 

### (intemal quotation marks 

### omitted) (quoting PIN/NIP, Inc. v. 

### Platte Chem. 

### Co.,304 F.3d 1235, 1241 (Fed. 

### Cir.2002)). When considering a 

### motion to dismiss 

### for lack 

### of subject matter 

### jurisdiction, the court 

### will "normally consider the facts alleged in the 

### complaint astrue and 

### correct." Reynolds v.

### Army 

### &

### Air Force Exch. 

### \erv.,846F.2d746,747 (Fed.

### Cir. 1988) 

### (citing Scheuer v. 

### Rhodes,4l6 U.S. 

### 232,236 

### (197a)). The party seeking 

### to establish the 

### court's 

### jurisdiction bears the burden 

### of proving 

### it by a preponderance 

### of the 

### evidence. McNutt v. General 

### MotorsAcceptdnce Corp. of 

### [nd.,298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); 

### Reynolds,846F.2dat748. In construing pleadings 

### fied by 

### pro se

### plaintiffs, the court generally holds them to 

### "'less stringent standards than 

### formal pleadings drafted 

### by 

### lawyers."' Estelle v.

### Gamble,429U.S.97, 106 ( 1976) (quoring 

### Haines v. 

### Kerner,404 U.S. 519, 520 ( 1972) (per 

### curiam) (intemal quotation marks

### omitted)). "This latitude, however, does 

### not relieve a

### pro se

### plaintiff from meeting 

### jurisdictional requirements." Bernard v. united States,59 Fed. 

### Cl. 497 

### , 499 (2004), 

### aff'd,98 Fed.

### Appx. 860 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2004); see also Henke 

### v. United 

### States,60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. 

### Cir. I

### 995). Thus, even as a

### pro se

### plaintiff, Ms. Herbert "bears the burden 

### of establishing the 

### [c]ourt's 

### jurisdiction by a preponderance 

### ofthe evidence." Riles

### v. United 

### States,93 Fed. 

### Cl. 163, 165 

### (2010) 

### (citing Taylor v. United 

### States,303 F.3d 1357,1359 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2002)).

### ANALYSIS

This court does not have

### jurisdiction over claims 

### ofviolations ofdue process, asthe Due Process Clause is not money-mand,ating. See,lamesv.

### Caldera,l59 F.3d 573, 581 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1998) 

### ("[T]he Court 

### of Federal

### Claims lacks 

### jurisdiction over [Due Process Clause claims] because [the Due Process Clause]

. . .

### is [not] a money-mandating 

### provision"). Consequently, this court cannot have

### jurisdiction over 

### Ms. l{erbert's claim that her 

### right to "substantive due process 

### in the courts 

### in the 

### US" was 

### violated when the Supreme Court 

### did not force the 

### Solicitor General

### to replyto Ms. Herbert's challenge 

### of a decision bythe Supreme 

### Court. See 

### Am. Compl. at 18.


### Ms. Herbert's takings claims also 

### fail to stateclaims upon 

### which relief can be granted, even under the 

### lenient interpretation afforded to

### pro se

### plaintiffs. See 

### RCFC 12(b)(6); 

### Stroughter v. United 

### States,89 Fed. 

### Cl. 755,760 (2009) 

### ("Although 

### pro se

### plaintiffs aregiven some leniency in presenting 

### their case, their 

### pro se status does 

### not immunize them 

### from pleading facts upon

### which a

### valid claim can 

### rest."). The Supreme Court refined the standard 

### for sufficient claims 

### in Bell

### Atlantic Corp. v.

### Twombt, 550 

### U.S. 544,569 (2007) 

### (requiring a claimant to allege "enough facts

### to state a

### claim to 

### reliefthat is plausible on its 

### face"), and 

### Ashcroft v. 

### Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

### 662,6'78 (2009) 

### ("[T]he tenet that a court must accept astrue 

### all of the allegations contained 

### in a

### complaint is inapplicable 

### to legal 

### conclusions. Threadbare recitals 

### of the elements 

### ofa cause

### ofaction, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not 

### suffice.").
Ms. Herbert makes both a 

### regulatory and a physical takings 

### claim, butthe facts that she alleges 

### would not constitute atakings under either 

### framework and therefore cannot support her legal conclusions that a

### taking has 

### occurred. Ms. Herbert alleges thatthe govemment took her 

### property by 

### regulatory meanswhen 

### it denied her entry 

### tothe Supreme Court on her challenge to the Supreme Court decision, when 

### it denied her a hearing, and when the Supreme Court 

### failed to force the

### Solicitor General

### to

### file a response. See

### Am. Compl. at I

### 8. The 

### right of entry to the Supreme Court and the 

### right to a hearing are not private property, and therefore 

### Ms. Herbert has 

### failed to allege that 

### private property has beentaken

### for public use. As for her physical takings 

### claim, Ms. Herbert alleges thatthe govemment, namely the clerks 

### of the Supreme Court, 

### committed a physical 

### taking when they allegedly refused

### to

### file and then 

### hid Ms. Herbert's 

### Motion to Compel the 

### United States 

### to Respond. 

### Am. Compl. 

### atflll 14, 

### 15.

## Acou(filingisnot private property, and thus 

### Ms. 

### Herbe( has

### failedto state aplausible takings 

### claim. The 

### court cannot discem a

### claim upon 

### which 

### reliefcan be granted. 

### CONCLUSION
The court does not have subject matter

### jurisdiction over 

### Ms. Herbert's due process claims, and her allegations 

### oftakings fail to state claims upon 

### which relief can be

### granted. As such, the 

### government's 

### Motion to Dismiss is 

### GRANTED pursuant

### to RCFC 

### l2(b)(1) and (6).
The 

### clerk is directed to 

### enterjudgment in accord

### with this disposition.


### No costs.

### It is so 

### ORDERED.

Charle's F. 

### Lettow