# 0RE#!!\{A!"

lln tbt 

# @nitr[

# $tutts tourt of

# fpXersl @lsfing
No. 16-1613 

### Fifed: March 

### 9,2017

,t ,i *:t:* * * *!:f,l ,f + * * {. * * **

ANDRE EVERTON GRANT



### Plaintiff,

v.
UNITED STATES,

Defendant.
* * {. {. * '* ti * '1.+ * * * * * * {, ,* 'l'



### Andre Everton Grant, pro se.


### Peter 

### A. Gwynee, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, DC,

### for defendant. 

### With him

### was Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Glaudia Burke, Assistant 

### Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

### Civil Division, United 

### States Department of Justice. 

## OPINION

HORN. J.
FINDINGS OF FACT

On December 5, 2016 pro se plaintiff Andre Everton Grant filed a complaint inthis courttitled'COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS 

### ACT.' 

### Plaintiffs complaint 

### alleges

### that

### the United States, actingthrough

### the United States 

### customs 

### and lmmigrations 

### service 

## (uscls) and 

### the United

### states lmmigration and Customs Enforcement (lCE), acted negligently and violated his rights under 

### the Fourth Amendment tothe United States Constitution when the United States government denied his claim of "derivative citizenship" and attempted to deport him after hewas imprisoned in 2010. Plaintiff claims "$1 0,040,029' indamages, costs, and although appearing pro se, requests attorney's fees.

Mr. Grantwas born inJamaica to Jamaican parents in 1985. On October 

### 18'2010' hewas sentenced to 48 months imprisonment by

### the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and, after ICE subsequently lodged an immigration detainer against him, hewastransferred tothe Moshannon Valley Correctional Center (MVCC). Mr. Grant 

# FILED

MAR

### - 9 2017

U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS



### ?01q 1a00 0000 1013 h80'{alleges that, immediately after he arrived at MVCC, he informed ICEthat hewas a United

States citizen. Mr. Grant alleges that, at

### the request 

### of lCE, hefiled an application for a Certificate 

### of Citizenship

### with USCIS,which was denied on 

### June 13, 201 1. Mr. Grant, however, alleges that he did not receive a copy ofthe denial letterfrom USCIS, as itwas returned

### to sender. According 

### to Mr. Grant, after 

### he eventually learned 

### thisthrough a Freedom 

### of Information Act request, hefiled a new application with USCIS, arguing that its negligence prevented himfrom receiving a denial letter and deprived himof his right to appeal the denial of his previous application.
According to his complaint, ICE initiated removal proceedings against Mr. Grant in May 2012 

### and on 

### July 17, 2012, he had his

### first hearing before 

### an immigration judge. According

### to Mr. Grant, atthis hearing

### the immigration judge stated that he believed Mr. Grant may be 

### a citizen and, at 

### a subsequent hearing in October 2012, 

### the immigration 

### judge instructed 

### Mr. Grant's attorney 

### to submit 

### a brief explaining 

### how Mr. Grant had acquired his citizenship. On December 

### 14,2012, ICE removed the immigration detainer that had been placed on Mr. Grant. Mr. Grant then sought atransfer out of MVCC and to 

## a communig confinement 

### center through 

## the United States Bureau 

## of Prisons administrative appeals process, but

### this request was denied on

### the grounds that there
was still a chance that Mr. Grant could be deported. Mr. Grant alleges that while he was 

### in custody, 

### on July

### 4,2013, his son 

### died in Jamaica "with

### a sickness 

### that would be considered curable if hewas in

### the United States." On December 6, 2013, ICE lodged a new detainer on Mr. Grant, which itcancelled on December 

### 12,2013.
According to plaintiff scomplaint, onthe day after the new detainer was cancelled, December 13, 2013, Mr. Grant

### was released 

### from MVCC. In February2014, however, 

### ICE again initiated removal proceedings against 

### Mr. Grant, 

### which

### were postponed pending his appeal 

### ofthe denial 

### of his application

### for a Certificate 

### of Citizenship with USCIS. 

### ln an order dated March

### 25,2014, which plaintiff has attached as an exhibit to 

### his complaint, 

### the USCIS Board 

### of lmmigration 

### Appeals ruled in favor 

### of Mr. Grant, concluding

### that he had acquired United States citizenship, effective February 

### 27,200'1,
asa result ofthe passage ofthe Child Citizenship Act of2000, Publ. L. No. 106-395, 114 Stat. 1631 (2000). Mr. Grant received his Certificate 

### of Citizenship on

### April 16,2014, a copy ofwhich he also attaches 

### to his complaint. Mr. Grant states that hefiled a claim for comoensation with USCIS on June 

### 5.2014. but has heard no answer since.

Based on

### these circumstances, Mr. Grant alleges 

### a number 

### of causes of action against USCIS and lCE. With regards to USCIS, Mr. Grant alleges that itacted negligently 

### when itdenied his citizenship after, allegedly, failing

### to properly interpret relevant case law 

### and statutes, 

### when it allegedly failed 

### to pay

### forthe postage 

### on his 

### June 13,2011 denial later. Mr. Grant also alleges that USCIS's actions resulted in the wrongful death 

### of hisson in Jamaica. Finally, Mr. Grant alleges 

### that USCIS's actionsviolated his "right to liberty" under

### the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and his "rights as a United States Citizen to seek gainful employment and or [sic] gotoschool."With regards 

### to lCE, Mr. Grant allegesthat itacted negligently infailing

### to "fully investigate all claims of Citizenship" and that its "placing and cancelling of numerous immigration detainers" on him constituted negligent infliction of emotional distress. Mr. Grant seeks $10,040,029.00 indamages, $10,000,000.00 for the emotional distress resulting from the alleged denialof his rights andthe death of his son and $40,029.00 for the costs of defending against

hisdeportation. Mr. Grant also requests that the court "take a look atthe constitutionality of

### the Board 

### of lmmigration Appeals [BlA] policy 

### as it pertains

### to precedence and Nonprecedent [sic] decisions, and issue 

### an injunction for 

### the BIA 

### to make [his] case 

### A [sic] precedential decision." Finally, 

### Mr. Grant seeks costs and, although 

### filing prose, also seeks attorney's fees.

On February 

### 2, 2017, defendant filed 

### a motion to dismiss 

### plaintiffs complaint 

### for lack of subject matterjurisdiction pursuant

### to Rule 12(b)(1) 

### of 

### the Rules 

### of the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims (RCFC). 

### In its motion, defendant argues that 

### the court lacksjurisdiction to hear plaintiffs' complaint because his allegations sound "exclusively" in

### tort and that 

### this court lacks jurisdiction 

### to hear

### tort claims. Mr. Grantfailed 

### tofile a timely opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss. This failure, however, does not impact 

### the court's analysis because 

### the result 

### in 

### the case 

### is clear based 

### onthe established 

### jurisdictional principles applicable 

### tothis court, 

### which dictate 

### that 

### the court iswithout jurisdiction

### to hearthe allegations raised by plaintiff.


### DtscussroN

The court recognizes that plaintiff is proceeding pro se,withoutthe assistance

### of counsel. When determining whether 

### a complaint filed by 

### a pro se plaintiff is sufficient to 

### invoke review 

### by

### a court, oro 

### se plaintiffs 

### are entitled

### to liberal construction 

### of their 

### pleadings. See Haines

### v. Kerner,

### 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (requiring 

### that allegations contained in a pro se complaint be heldto "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"), reh'q denied, 405 U.S. 9a8 

### (972); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 

### 9a Q007); Huqhes 

### v. Rowe,449 U.S. 

### 5, 9-10 (1980); Estelle 

### v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), reh'q 

### denied,429 U.S. 1066 (1977); Matthews v. United States, 750 F.3d 1320, 

### 1322(Fed.Cu.2014); Diamond v. United States, 115 Fed.

### C|.516,

### 524,affd, 603 F.App'x 947 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 1909 (201

### 5). "However, "'[t]here is
no duty on the part ofthetrial court to create a claim which [the plaintiffl has not spelled 

### out in his [or her] 

### pleading.""' Lenqen

### v. United 

### States, 100 Fed. 

### Cl. 317, 328 (2011) (alterations 

### in original) (quoting Scoqin 

### v. United States, 

### 33 Fed.

### Cl.285,293 (1995) (quoting Clark

### v. Nat'l Travelers Life lns. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975))); see also Bussiev. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 89, 94, 

### aft'd,443 F.App'x 542 (Fed. Cn.2011); Minehan v. United States, 75 Fed.

### Cl.249,253 (2007). "While a pro se plaintiff is held to 

### a less stringent standard than 

### that of 

### a plaintiff represented by an attorney,

### the pro se 

### plaintiff, nevertheless, 

### bears

### the burden 

### of establishing 

### the Court's 

### jurisdiction 

### by a preponderance 

### ofthe 

### evidence." Riles

### v. United States, 

### 93 Fed. 

### Cl. 163, 165 (2010) (citing Huqhes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. at 9 and Tavlor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir.) ("Plaintiff bears 

### the burden of showing jurisdiction by

### a preponderance ofthe evidence."), reh'q 

### and reh'q 

### en banc 

### denied (Fed. 

### Cir. 2002)); 

### see also Shelkofskv v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 133, 139 (2014) ("[Wlhile the court may excuse ambiguities 

### in

### a pro 

### se plaintiff's complaint, 

### the court 'does not excuse 

### [a complaint's] failures."' (quoting Henke 

### v. United States, 

### 60 F.3d

### 795,799 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995)); Harris

### v. United 

### States, 113 Fed. Cl. 

### 290, 252 (2013) ("Although 

### plaintiffs pleadings 

### are held

### to a less stringent standard, such leniency 

### 'with respect

### to mere formalities 

### does not relieve the burden 

### to meetjurisdictional requirements."' (quoting Minehan 

### v. United States, 75 Fed.

### Cl. at 253)). Even given 

### the rules which apply 

### to pro

### se plaintiffs, 

### plaintiffs complaint

currently before the court, although attempting to cite to a range of statutes and case law, does not allege cause of actionjusticiable inthis court. 

### Defendant, 

### in

### a very summary, cut-and-paste motion 

### has moved

### to dismiss 

### plaintiff's complaint pursuant 

### to RCFC 12(bX1)

### for lack

### of subject matter jurisdiction. Nonetheless,

### the defendant is correct aboutthe failure 

### of plaintiff

### to raise issues within this court'sjurisdiction. The Tucker Act,28 U.S.C. S 1491

,grantsjurisdictiontothis court
as follows:

The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim againstthe United States founded either upon the Constitution, 

### or any

### Act

### of Congress 

### 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. 

### $ 1491(a)(1) (2012). 

### As interpreted

### bythe United States Supreme Court, the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity to allowjurisdiction over claims against the United States (1)founded on an express or implied contract with 

### the United States, (2) seeking 

## a refund 

### from

## a prior payment made

### to the government,

### or (3) based 

### on federal 

### constitutional, statutory, 

### or regulatory 

### law mandating compensation 

### bythe federal government for damages sustained. See United States 

### v. Navaio Nation,556 U.S. 287, 

### 289-90 (2009); United States

### v. Mitchell,463 U.S.

### 206,216 (1983);see also Greenlee Cntv., Ariz. v. United States,487 F.3d871,875 (Fed. Cir.), reh's and reh'q en banc denied (Fed. 

### Cir.2007), cert. 

### denied,552 U.S. 

### 1142(2008); Palmerv. United States, 168 F.3d 1310,1314 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
"Not 

### every claim invoking 

### the Constitution, 

### a federal statute, 

### or

### a regulation is cognizable underthe Tucker Act. The claim must be onefor money damages against the United States

. . . ." United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 216; see also United States v. 

### White Mountain Apache Tribe, 

### 537 U.S. 465, 

### 472 (2003); Smith

### v. United States, 709 

### F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir.), cert. 

### denied, 134 

### S. Ct. 259 (2013); RadioShack Corp. v. United 

### States,566 F.3d 1358, 1360 (Fed. 

### Cir.2009); Rick's Mushroom 

### Serv., lnc. v. United 

### States, 521 

### F.3d'1338, 1343 (Fed. 

### Cir.2008) ("[P]laintifi

### must.

. . identify a substantive source 

### of law

### that creates 

### the right 

### to recovery 

### of money damages against 

### the United States."); Golden

### v. United States, 118 Fed. 

### C'.764,768 (2014).In Ontario 

### Power Generation. 

### Inc.

### v. United States, 

### the United 

### States Court

### of Appeals 

### for the Federal Circuit identified three types of monetary claims for whichjurisdiction is lodged in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The court wrote:

The underlying monetary claims are ofthree types.

. . . First, claims alleging 

### the existence 

### of a contract between 

### the plaintiff and 

### the government fall 

### within

### the Tucker 

### Act's

# waiver. Second,

### the Tucker 

### Act's waiver 

### encompasses claims 

### where 

### "the plaintiff 

### has paid money 

### over

### to the Government, directly or in effect, and seeks return of all or part ofthat sum." Eastport S.S. lCorp. 

### v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 599, 

### 605-06,] 372 F.2d [1

### 002,] 1007-08 [(1967)] (describing illegal exaction claims 

### as claims "in

### which 

### 'the Government 

### has 

### the citizen's money 

### in its pocket"' (quoting



### Clappv. United 

### States,127 Ct. 

### C|.505, 117 F. 

### Supp.576,580 

### (1954))...

. Third, the Court of Federal Claims hasjurisdiction overthose claims where "money has not been paid but

### the plaintiff asserts

### that he 

### is nevertheless entitled

### to a payment from the treasury." Eastport S.S.,

### 372 F.2d 

### at 1007. 

### Claims in this third category, 

### where 

### no payment 

### has been made 

### to the government, either directly or in effect, require that the "particular provision of law relied upon grants the claimant, expressly or by implication, a right to 

### be paid 

### a certain sum." 

### ld.; see also lUnited States 

### v. lTestan, 

### 424 U.S. 1392,1 401-02 [1976] ("Where 

### the United States 

### isthe defendant and the plaintiff is not suing for money improperly exacted or retained, the basis 

### of thefederal claim-whether 

### it be

### the Constitution, 

### a statute, 

### or a regulationdoes not create a cause of action for money damages unless, asthe Court 

### of Claims has stated, 

### that basis 

### 'in itself



# . can 

### fairly 

### be interpreted as 

### mandating compensation 

### bythe Federal Government

### forthe damage sustained."' (quoting Eastport 

### S.S.,372 F.2d 

### at 1009)).

### This category is 

### commonly referred 

## to as claims brought under

## a "money-mandating" statute.
Ontario 

### PowerGeneration. Inc.

### v. United 

### States,369 F.3d 1298, 1301 (Fed. 

### Cir.2004);
see also Twp. of Saddle Brook

### v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 101, 106 (2012).


### To prove

### that

## a statute

## or regulation 

### is money-mandating, 

## a plaintiff must demonstrate 

### that an independent source 

### of substantive 

### law relied upon "'can 

### fairly be interpreted 

### as mandating compensation by

### the Federal Government."' United States v. Navaio Nation, 

### 556 U.S. 

### at 290 (quoting United States 

### v.Testan,424 U.S.392, 400 (1976)); see also United States v.White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. at472; United States

### v. Mitchell, 

### 463 U.S. at 217; Blueport Co.. LLC 

### v. United States, 533 F.3d 1374, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1153 (2009).

### The source 

### of law granting monetary relief must be distinct from the Tucker 

### Act itself. See United States

### v. Navaio Nation, 556 U.S. at 290 (The Tucker Act does not create "substantive rights; [it issimply 

## al jurisdictional provision[]

### that operate[s]

## to waive sovereign immunity

### for claims premised 

### on other sources 

### of law (e.9., statutes 

### or contracts)."). 

### "'lf the statute 

### is not money-mandating, 

### the Court 

### of Federal Claims lacksjurisdiction, 

### and

### the dismissal 

### should be

### for lack 

### of subject matterjurisdiction."' 

### Jan's Helicopter 

### Serv., Inc.

### v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299, 1308 (Fed. 

### Cir.2008) (quoting Greenlee Cntv., Ariz. v. United States, 487 F.3d at 876); Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (The absence of a money-mandating source is "fatal tothe court's jurisdiction under the

### TuckerAct."); Peoples v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 553, 

### 565-66 (2009).

When deciding a case based on 

### a lack of subject matterjurisdiction or for failure to state a claim, this court must assume that all undisputed facts alleged inthe complaint
are true and must draw all reasonable inferences inthe non-movant's favor. See Erickson 

### v. Pardus, 

### 551 U.S. 

### at 94 ("[W]hen ruling 

### on a defendant's motion 

### to dismiss, ajudge must accept as true all ofthefactual allegations contained inthe complaint." (citing Bell Atl. Corp.v.Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

### 555-56 (2007) (citing Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 508 n.1 (2002)))); Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters. lnc.v. United States, 805

### F.3d 1082, 1084 (Fed. 

### Cir.2015); Trusted Inteqration. Inc.

### v. United 

### States.659 F.3d

1 159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 201 1).
"Determination ofjurisdiction startswiththe complaint, which must bewell-pleaded in

### that it must state

### the necessary elements of

### the plaintiffls claim, independent 

### of any defense that may be interposed." Hollev v. United States 

### ,124 F.3d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir.) (citing Franchise 

### Tax Bd. 

### v. Constr. Laborers Vacation 

### Trust,463 U.S. 1 (1983)), reh'q denied (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Klamath Tribe Claims Comm. v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 203, 208 (2011); Gonzalez-McOaullev Inv. Grp., lnc. v. United States, 93 Fed. 

### C|.710, 713 (2010).A plaintiff need only state inthe complaint "a short and plain statement ofthe grounds for the court'sjurisdiction," and "a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." RCFC 8(aX1), (2) (2016): Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (2) (2016); see also Ashcroft 

### v. lqbal, 556 U.S. 

### 662,677-78 (2009) (citing BellAtl. Corp. v. 

### Twomblv, 

### 550 U.S.

### 544,555-57,570 (2007)).To properly 

### state

### a claim 

### for relief, "[c]onclusory allegations 

### of law 

### and unwarranted inferences 

### offact 

### do not suffice to support a claim." Bradlevv. Chiron Corp., 136 F.3d 1317,1322 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also 

### McZeal

### v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 

### 501 F.3d 1354, 1363 

### n.9 (Fed. 

### Cn.2007\ (Dyk, J., concurring in part,dissenting in part) (quoting C.Wright and

### A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure S 1286 (3d ed. 2004)); Briscoe v. LaHue, 663 F.2d 713,723 (7th Cir. 1981) ("[C]onclusory allegations unsupported 

### by any factual assertions 

### will not withstand a motion to dismiss."), affd, 460 U.S. 325 (1983). "A plaintiff sfactual allegations must'raise 

### a right

### to relief above

### the speculative 

### level' 

### and cross 

### 'the line 

### from conceivable to 

### plausible."'Three S Consultino

### v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 510, 523 (2012) (quoting Bell

### Atl. Corp.

### v.Twomblv, 

### 550 U.S. 

### at 555), 

### atfd, 562 F.

### App'x 964 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q denied (Fed. 

### Cr. 2014). As stated inAshcroft v. lqbal, "[a] pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'aformulaic recitation ofthe elements of a cause of action will not do.' 550 U.S. at555. Nordoes a complaint suffice if ittenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of'further 

### factual enhancement."' 

### Ashcroft

### v. lqbal, 

### 556 U.S. 

### at 678 (quoting Bell

### Atl. Corp. v. Twomblv, 550 U.S. at 555)

Most ofthe causes of action alleged in Mr.Grant's complaint, if legally cognizable 

### at all, given

### thefacts alleged, sound in

### tort, including negligence, negligent infliction

### of emotional distress, and the wrongful death of his son inJamaica. Indeed, Mr. Hood titled his 

### complaint'COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES UNDER

### THE 

### FEDEML TORT CLAIMS 

### ACT.' lt is clearthat this court does not have jurisdiction 

### to hear tort claims against the United States. See 28 U.S.C. S 1a91(a)(1) ("The United States Court

### of Federal Claims shall havejurisdiction

. . . in cases not sounding intort."); see also Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 214 (1993) ("[T]ort cases are outside thejurisdiction ofthe Court 

### of Federal Claimstoday."); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621,623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("The 

### Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims 

### is 

### a court 

### of limited

### jurisdiction. 

### lt lacks

### jurisdiction over tort actions against the United States."); Kantv. United 

### States,123 Fed. Cl. 614, 616 (2015). Indeed, 

### the jurisdictional provision identified 

### in plaintiffs complaint, 

### the Federal Tort Claims Act,28 U.S.C. S 1346, makes tort claims against the United States the exclusive purview ofthe United States District Courts. See 28 U.S.C. S 1346(bX1); see also Brown 

### v. United 

### States,74 Fed. Cl. 546, 549 (2006) ("[T]he FTCA [Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 

### U.S.C. S 1

### 346(b)(1)l grants exclusive 

### jurisdiction

### to the United States 

### federal district courts regarding tort claims against the United States Government.").Plaintiff also alleges thatthe actions of USCIS violated his rights under the Fourth

Amendment tothe United States Constitution. This court also has nojurisdiction over any claim based on

### the Fourth Amendment. See LaChance 

### v. United States, 15 Cl.CL 127, 130 (1988) ("[T]he fourth amendment does not mandate

### the payment 

### of money by the United States." (citing Shaw

### v. United States, 

### 8 Cl. Ct. 796, 800 (1985))); Roberson v. United States, 115 Fed. 

### Cl.234,240 ("The Fourth Amendment is not money-mandating." (citing Brown 

### v. United States, 105 F.3d 

### 621,623 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1997))), appeal dismissed, 

### 556 F.

### App'x 966 (Fed. 

### Cu.2014); Haka

### v. United 

### States, 107 Fed. 

### Cl. 111,113-14 (2012); Kam-Almaz 

### v. United States, 

### 96 Fed. Cl. 84, 

### 89 (2011) ("[T]his Court does not havejurisdiction to hear claims contesting the laMulness of asearch and seizure because 

### due process 

### and Fourth Amendment claims 

### are reserved

### tothe District 

### Court." (citing LeBlanc

### v. United States, 

### 50 F.3d 1025,1028 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995))),

### aff'd, 682 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Finally, plaintiff alleges that USCIS "violated [his] rights as 

### a United States citizen to seek gainful employment and or goto school." For this claim, plaintiff cites to insufficient facts to support his allegation and to no regulation, statute, or constitutional provision that 

### can be interpreted 

### as mandating 

### he can claim 

### the payment 

### of money 

### for an alleged violation by the government ofthese alleged "rights."The court, thus, lacks jurisdictionto hear defendant's claims based onthese allegations.

The court notes that, along with his complaint, plaintiff has filed anApplicationto Proceed ln Forma Pauperis. Inorder to provide access tothis court tothose who cannot paythefilingfees mandated by RCFC 77 .1(c), 28 U.S.C. S 1915 (2012) permits a court 

### to allow 

### a plaintiffto file a complaintwithout payment of fees or security, under specific circumstances. Section 1915(a)(1) states that:
Subject to subsection (b), any court ofthe United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil 

### or criminal, 

### or appealtherein, without prepayment of

### fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit 

### that includes a statement 

### of all assets such prisoner[l] possesses [and]thatthe person is unable to pay

1A number

### of courts have reviewed 

### thewords 

### of

### 28 U.S.C. S 1915(a)(1), regarding in 

### forma pauperis applications 

### by non-prisoner 

### litigants 

### in federal courts, 

### and have concluded that Congress did not intendfor non-prisoners to be barredfrom being ableto proceed informa pauperis infederal court. 

### See,94=, Floydv. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 

### 274,275-76 (6th Cir.), reh'q denied (6th Cir. 1997); Schaqene v. United States, 

### 37Fed. C|.661,663(1997),appeal dismissed,152F.3d 

### 947(Fed.Cir. 1998); 

### seealso ln re Prison Litiqation Reform 

### Act, 105 F.3d 1131 

### ,1134 (6th 

### Cir. 1997) (discussing how to administer informa pauperis rightsto a non-prisoner, thereby acknowledging the rights of non-prisoners to

### applyfor informa pauperis status); Leonard v. 

### Lacv,88 F.3d 181,183 

### (2d Cir. 1996) (using "sic" following 

### the word "prisoner" 

### in

### 28 U.S.C.

## g 1915(a)(1) seemingly 

### to indicate that

### the use of thatword was

### too narrow); Smith 

### v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl.241 

### ,243(2013): Powell v. 

### Hoover,956 F. 

### Supp.564,566 (M.D. Pa. 1997) (holding that a "fair reading of the entire section [28 U.S.C. S 191s(aX1)] isthat it is not limited 

### to prisoner suits."). Moreover, 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1915(a)(1) refers to both "person" andsuch fees or give security 

### therefor. Such affidavit shall state 

### the nature 

### of

the action, defense or appeal and affiant's belief thatthe person is entitled to reclress.

28 U.S.C. $ 1915(a)(1). Therefore, the statute at28 U.S.C. $ 1915(a)(1) requires a person to submit an affidavit with astatement of allthe applicant's assets, and thatthe affidavit state 

### the nature 

### ofthe action, defense 

### or appeal 

### and affiant's belief that 

### the person is entitled to redress. See id.

The standard in 28 U.S.C. S 1915(a)(1) for informa pauperis eligibility is "unable to pay such fees or give security 

### therefor." Determination ofwhat constitutes "unable to pay" 

### or unable

### to "give security therefor," and therefore, whether 

### to allow 

### a plaintiff to proceed in

### forma pauperis 

### is left

### tothe discretion of

### the presiding 

### judge, based onthe information submitted 

### by

### the plaintiff

### or plaintiffs. See, 

### e.q., Rowland 

### v. Cal. Men's Colony. Unit ll 

### Men'sAdvisoryCouncil,506 U.S. 

### 194,217-18 (1993); Roberson v. United 

### States, 115 Fed. Cl. 234, 239, appeal dismissed, 

### 556 F.

### App'x 966 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Fuentes

### v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 85, 92 (201

### 1). This court and its predecessors
were established 

### to make available 

### a user friendly 

### forum in which plaintiffs can submit 

### their legitimate claims against 

### the sovereign, limited 

### only by 

### the legislative decision to waive sovereign immunity asto thetypes of claims

### allowed. Infact, prominently posted at the entranceto this courthouse are the words of Abraham Lincoln: 

### "lt is as much the duty of government

### to render prompt justice against itself, infavor of citizens, as it isto administer the same, between private individuals." Interpreting an earlierversion of

### the informa pauperis statute,

### the United States Supreme Court offered the following guidance:

We cannot agree with the court belowthat one must be absolutely destitute 

### to enjoy

### the benefit of

### the statute. 

### Wethink an affidavit is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty "pay or give security for the 

### costs



### . . . and still be able 

### to orovide" himself 

### and deoendents "with the necessities 

### of 

### life." To say 

### that no persons 

### are entitled 

### tothe statute's benefits until

### they have sworn 

### to contribute

### to payment 

### of costs, 

### the last 

### dollar 

### they have 

## or can get, and thus make themselves 

### and their dependents wholly destitute, would beto construe the statute in away that would throw its beneficiaries into the category of public charges. The public would not be profited if relieved of paying costs of a particular litigation only 

### to have imposed on itthe expense of supporting the person thereby made
an object of public 

### support. Nor does the result seem more desirable ifthe effect 

### of this statutory interpretation isto

### force

### a litigant

### to abandon what

"prisoner." 

### The 

### word "person" 

### is used three times 

### inthe subsection, 

### while

### the word "prisoner" 

### is used only once. This court, therefore, finds that

### the single use of the word "prisoner" inthe language of28 

### U.S.C S 1915(aX1)was not intended to eliminate a nonprisoner from proceeding infederal court informa pauperis, provided thatthe civil litigant 

### can demonstrate appropriate need. 

### Any other interpretation 

### is inconsistent 

### with the statutory scheme of28 U.S.C. S 1915.may be 

### a meritorious claim in order 

### to spare himself complete destitution

Wethink 

### a construction of the statute achieving such consequences is an inadmissible one.


### Adkins

### v. E.l. DuPont

### de Nemours 

### & Co., 

### 335 U.S. 

### 331,

### 33940 (1948) (omissions in original).

In Fiebelkorn v. United States, for example, aJudge of

### the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims indicated that:
[T]he threshold for a motion

### to proceed informa pauperis is not high: The statute requires that the applicant be 'unable 

### to pay suchfees.' 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1915(a)(1). To be 'unable to pay such fees' means that paying such fees would constitute a serious hardship on

### the plaintiff, notthat such payment would render olaintiff destitute.

Fiebelkorn v. United States 

### ,77 Fed. Cl. 59, 62 (2007); see also Fuentesv. United States, 100 Fed. Cl.

### at92; Havesv. United 

### States,71 Fed. 

### C|.366,369 (2006).

In his Application to Proceed ln Forma Pauperis, plaintiff states that he is presently employed with 

### a gross income of $42,000.00 

### ayear and 

### a net income

### of $31,000.00 a year andthat hefinancially supports a son and his mother. The court notesthat plaintiffs salary, although modest, is significantly above the establishedfederal poverty linefor a family of eitherthree orfour, as defined by

### the United States Department 

### of Health and Human Services' Poverty Guidelines. See Annual Update ofthe HHS Poverty Guidelines, 82 Fed. Reg. 8831-03, 8832 (Jan. 31
,2017) (listing the poverty line as $20,420.00 for a family ofthree and $24,600.00 for afamily offour). Review of prior decisions inthis court demonstrates that those granted informa pauperis status generally have an income much 

### closerto the poverty line than 

### plaintiffs. See, e.q., Fuentes v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. at 92 (finding that plaintiff's income of less than $24,000.00 was "not significantly above poverty level" listed byfederal guidelines as $14,7'10 

### for afamily of

### two); Fiebelkorn v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. at 62 (finding that plaintiff's income was "only $823 above the 

### 2007 Department 

### of Health 

### and Human Services Poverty Guidelines 

### for three-person families"). The court, thus, isskeptical that plaintiff is eligible to receive informa pauperis status. 

### The court need not, however, make 

### this determination because, 

### as discusseo above, the court has determined that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims alleged in plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiffls motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis, therefore, is denied as moot.

CONCLUSION

Because 

### the court lacks jurisdiction 

### to adjudicate 

### any of 

### the alleged causes of action included in plaintiff's complaint. defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

o

### Plaintiffs complaint 

### is 

### DISilISSED. Plaintiffs Application to Proceed ln Forma Pauoeris is

denied as If,OOT. The clerk shall enter JUDGIf,ENT consistent wlth this opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RIAN 

### BLANK HO 

### Judge

10