# FILED

No. l6-360 Filed: November l 5, 20'l 6
t + +* * * * * * * * * * * :r :r* * * r.* :r* * * * * * * * * * :r :r ,r ,r ir ir*

# * 2g 

### u.s.c. $ 

### l4g1 (Tucker

### Act



# i rr".'.3:ifllfilamagesror 

# JACOBJ.ZHUCKKAHOSEE, *



# . z'..r.3:'u';:ff?;""i'fi)igainstthe Plaintiff, 

### pro

# se, * united States

### for Uniust 

## +_ 

# " I ,r 

# , , 

# !;lt1il)i.un,r.. to

# c*" Want 

### ofJurisdiction); 

# * Rulesof the United States Court 

### of



# . Federal Claims 

### f'RCFC") THE UNITED

# STATES' * l2(b)(l) (Subject Matter



# * RcFc#effl3:]:"rAmended 

# Defendant. *



# .. Pleading).


### +1.**i.****:|,t,t*:*1.**++t,B++ ,t 

### ** **********
Jacob J. Zhuckkahosee, 

### pro se, 

### Plaintiff. 

### Albert Salvatore 

### Iarossi, United States Department 

## of Justice, 

### Acting Assistant Attorney General, Washington, D.C., Counsel for the Government.



### MEMORANDUM OPINION AND 

### FINAL ORDER BRADEN, Judge. 

# I. RELEVA}ITFACTUALBACKGROUND.'

Jacob Zhuckkahosee is a member 

### ofthe Menominee Indian

### Tribe. On January 

### 10,2012, the Menominee 

### Tribal Court convicted 

### Mr. Zhuckkahosee 

### of one count 

### of First Degree Sexual Assault 

### Of

### A Child and one count 

### of 

### Battery. Pl. Ex. 

### B. That same day, 

### Mr. Zhuckkahosee was sentenced to:

## (l) twelve months 

### ofTribal Jail 

### with six months stayed; (2) payment 

### ofa $150fine; and 

### (3) eighteen months 

### of probation. Pl. Ex.

# A. Pursuant 

### to the Menominee Sex Offender Registration and 

### Notification Ordinance, 

### Mr. Zhuckkahosee was required 

### to register and remain 

## I The relevant 

### facts discussed herein 

### were derived

### from the June 

### 22,2016 Amended Complaint 

### ("Am. Compl. 

### l-3"), andthe attached exhibits ("P1. Ex.

### A-D"). The court has labeled the January

### 31,2012 Menominee

### Tribal Court Sentencing Order as 

### Exhibit A; the September 16, 2013

### Ami R. Nacotee 

### Criminal Complaint as Exhibit B; and theJuly 19,2013 Statement of Gerald Thorpe, Sex Offender Registry Coordinator, as 

### Exhibit C.

USPS TRACKING # 

### 9114 9014 9645 0594 5522 45 & CUSTOMER NUMBER For Tracking or inquiries go to USPS.COM or call 1-800-222-1811registered for the duration 

### of his 

### life, asasex offender 

### with the 

### Tribal Sex Offender 

### Registry. Pl.

Ex. B.
On May 30,

### 2012,lhe Menominee Sex Offender Registry Coordinator and the Wisconsrn Sex Offender Registry Specialist 

### visited 

### Mr. Zhuckkahosee 

### atthe Menominee 

### Tribal

### Jail. pl. Ex.

## C. Mr. Zhuckkahosee 

### was informed 

### of his obligations as

### a registered sex offender and 

### provided

### with acknowledgment 

### forms. Pl. Ex.

## C. Mr. Zhuckkahosee signed

### the forms and subsequently was released from the Menominee Tribal 

### Jail. Pl. Ex. C. 

### On

### July 12, 2012, 

### Mr. Zhuckkahosee reported

### to the Menominee 

### Tribal Sex Offender Registry Office that he lived at N276 Max Martin Road, Keshena, 

### Wisconsin. pl. Ex. 

### C. On

### April 13, 2013 and June 3, 2013, the Registry Coordinator mailed a letter to N276 

### Max Martin Road in orderto

### verify that 

### Mr. Zhuckkahosee lived atthat address. Pt. Ex. C.
On

### July 16,2013, the police responded to a

### fire at N276 Max 

### Martin Road. pl. Ex. 

### C. At the scene, officers questioned a resident 

### of N276 

### Max Martin Road

### who informed them that 

### Mr. Zhuckkahosee did not 

### live there. Pl. Ex. C. 

### On 

### July 17,

### 2013,the police received 

### a report 

### that 

### Mr. Zhuckkahosee inappropriately touched afour-year old 

### girl. Pl. Ex.

## c. In response, the policevisited 

### Mr. Zhuckkahosee's listed residence 

### to conduct a Sex 

### offender Registry Residential

### verification. pl. Ex.

# c, Upon amival, they discovered that 

### Mr. Zhuckkahosee had not lived at N276 Max Martin Road since Julv

### 4.2013. Pl. Ex. C.
On 

### July |8, 2013, the police determined that 

### Mr. Zhuckkahosee was 

### living in the woods 

### offof Kittecon Road onthe Menominee Reservation. Pl. Ex.

## c. Later that dav. Mr. Zhuckkahosee was located and arrested. Pl. Ex. C.
On September 16,2013, the Menominee 

### Tribal Prosecutor 

### filed a 

### Criminal Comolaint in 

### Tribal Court alleging that 

### Mr. Zhuckkahosee violated the Menominee Sex Offender Resistration and 

### Notification Ordinance. Pl. Ex. B.
Some 

### time later, 

### the United States indicted 

### Mr. Zhuckkahosee 

### for sexualAbuse 

## of A Person 

### under The 

### Age

## of Sixteen. Am. 

### compl. at

# l. Mr. Zhuckkahosee pled 

### guilty before the United States 

### District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and was sentenced 

### to 135 months 

## of imprisonment. 

### Am. compl. 

## at

# L The Menominee 

### Tribe subsequently transferred 

### Mr. Zhuckkahosee 

### to the Federal Correctional 

### Institute 

### in Mariana, Florida, where 

### he 

### is currentlv serving his prison term. 

# II. PROCEDURALHISTORY.
On 

### March 18,2016, 

### Mr. Jacob Zhuckkahosee 

### (,,plaintiff 

### ') filed a Complaint (.,Compl.") 

### in the 

### united states 

### court 

### of Federal 

### claims alleging 

### that wisconsin, Menominee 

### Tribe and federal 

### officials violated his statutory and constitutional 

### rights. Plaintiff also

### filed a 

### Motion For Leave 

### To Proceed 1n 

### Forma Pauperis. 

### onApril 8,2016, the court granted the 

### March 

### lg,2016 Motion.On 

### May 19, 2016, the Govemment 

### filed a Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Rule l2(b)( I)

### of

the United States 

### Court 

## of Federal 

### Claims 

### ("RCFC"), arguing 

### that the court 

### did not have 

### jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims alleged in the 

### March 18, 2016

### complaint, because 

### Plaintiff did not name the United States as a defendant.
On June22, 2016, 

### Plaintifffiled a 

### Motion To Amend and anAmended 

### Complaint. The June 22, 201 6 Amended Complaint named the United States asthe defendant and set

### forth two 

### claims. The 

### first claim alleged that the Menominee lndian Tribe improperly transferred 

### Plaintiff into federal custody and that the United States

### wrongfully imprisoned 

### Plaintiff in

### violation 

### ofthe Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as

### well asthe 

### Wolf River Treaty

### of 1854.2 The second claim alleged that the United States improperly certified 

### Plaintiff 

### for 

### civil commitment as 

### a sexually dangerous person under 

### the Adam 

### walsh 

### child Protection 

### And Safety 

### Act Of2006,42 U.S.C. g$ 16901-16962 (,,Adam Walsh 

### Act',). On June 

### 23,2016,the court granted 

### Plaintiffs June22,2016 Motion To Amend. 

### OnJuly 

### 7,2016, the Govemment

### filed 

### a Motion

### To Dismiss 

### PlaintifPs Amended 

### Complaint 

### ("Gov. Mot."), pursuant 

### to RCFC I

### 2(bxl 

## ), arguing 

### that the court 

### did not have 

### jurisdiction over either claim alleged in

### the June 

### 22,2016 Amended Complaint.
On 

### July25, 2016, 

### Plaintiff filed a Response 

### tothe 

### July 7, 2016 

### Motion. On August 4, 2016, the Government 

### filed a Reply.
On September 20, 2016, 

### Plaintiff filed aMotion For Extension OfTimeTo File ISur] Reply to the Govemment's August 4, 2016 Reply and a 

### Motion For Leave 

### To File

### A Second Amended Complaint. 

### On September 

### 26, 2016,

### the Government 

### filed a Response 

### to the September 

### 20, 2016 

### Motion For Leave 

### To File

### A Second Amended 

### complaint, arguing that the court should denythe motion, because amendment would befutile. 

# ilI. DISCUSSION. 

# A, Jurisdiction.
The United States 

### court ofFederal 

### claims hasjurisdiction under the Tucker AcL 2g U.S.c. 

### $ 1491, 

### "to render

### judgment upon any 

### claim against the 

### United States founded either upon 

### tre constitution, or any 

### Act of congress 

### or any regulation 

### of an executive department, 

### o. upon uny express 

### or implied contract

### with the 

### united States, 

### or

### for liquidated 

### or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in

### tort." 28

### u.s.c. $

### lagl(a)(l). The Tucker Act, however, is ,,ajurisdictional slatute; 

### it does not create any substantive 

### right enforceable against the 

### United States 

### for money damages.



### . 

### .

# . [T]heAct merely confers 

### jurisdiction upon [the 

### united States 

### court 

### of Federal 

### claimsl whenever the substantive right 

### exists." united stqtes v.

### Testan,424ll.S.3g2,3gg (1g76).
To pursue a substantive 

### right undertheTucker

### Act, a 

### plaintiff must 

### identifv and oleao an independent contractual relationship, 

### constitutional provision, federal statute 

### ani/o. executive 

# ' The

### full text

### of the 

### Wolf River Treaty

## of 1854 

### is available 

### at: htto://digital.librarv. okstate.edu/kapnler/vol2ltreaties/men0626.htm.agency regufation that provides a substantive right to money damages. See Todd v. United States,

386 F.3d 

### l09l
, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 

### ("[J]urisdiction under the Tucker 

### Act requires the litigant to identify asubstantive 

### right for money damages against the United States separatefrom theTucker 

### Act[.]"); see also Fisher 

### v. United States, 402 

### F.3d 1167,

## ll72 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2005) (en banc) 

### (*The 

### TuckerAct...doesnotcreateasubstantivecauseofaction;...aplaintiffmustidentifyaseparate
source

### of substantive 

### law that creates the 

### right

### to money damages.



### . 

### .

# . [T]hat source must be 'money-mandating. 

# "'). Specifically, a 

### plaintiff must demonstrate that the source

### of substantive 

### law upon

### which he relies 

### "can

### fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation 

### bythe Federal 

### Government[.]" Testan, 

### 424 U.S. at

### 400. And, the

### plaintiff bears

### the burden 

### of establishing 

### jurisdiction by a preponderance 

### ofthe evidence. See Reynolds v.

### Army &

### Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 

### 746,748 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1988) 

### ("[O]nce the 

### [trial] court's subject matter

### jurisdiction 

### [is] put 

### in question.

.

### . [the 

### plaintiffl bears 

### the burden

### of establishing subject matter 

### jurisdiction by a preponderance

### of the evidence."). 

# B. Standard 

### For Motion To Dismiss 

### Under 

### RCFC

## l2(bxl).
A challenge to the United States Court 

### ofFederal Claims' "general power to adjudicate in 

### specific areas

## of substantive 

# law is properly raised 

### by

## a [Rule] 

## l2(b)(l) motion[.]', Palmer v. United States, 168 

### F.3d I 3 10, I 3 I3 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1999); see c/so 

### RCFC l2(b)( I

### ) (,.Every defense to a claim 

### for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading.

. .

## . But a party may assert the

### following defenses by 

### motion: (l

### ) lack 

### of subject-matter 

### jurisdiction[.],'). When considering 

### whetler to dismiss an action 

### for lack 

### of subject matter 

### jurisdiction, "a court must accept astrue all undisputed facts asserted in the 

### plaintifFs complaint and draw all reasonable inferences 

### infavor 

### of the

### plaintiff." Trusted Integration, 

### Inc. 

### v. [Jnited states, 659 

### F.3d I 159, I 163 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### 201l). 

# C, Standard Of Review 

### For

## llo ,9e

### Litigants.
Pro se

### plaintiffs' pleadings are held 

### to a less stringent standard than those

### of litigants represented 

### by counsel. See Haines 

### v. Kerner,404 U.S. 519, 520 

### (1972) (holding that 

### pro se complaints, 

### "however 

### inartfully pleaded," are held 

### to "less stringent standards 

### than formal pleadings drafted 

### by 

### lawyers"). The court 

### traditionally examines the record 

### "to see

### if [a 

### pro se] 

### plaintiff has a cause 

### of action somewhere 

### displayed." Ruderer

### v. united 

### states,4lz F.2d 

### l2g5, 1292 

### (ct.

## cl. 1969). Nevertheless, 

### while the court may excuse ambiguiti es in a

### pro se

### plaintiff s complaint, the court "does not excuse [a 

### complaint's] 

### failures." Henke 

### v. united states,60F.3d 795,799 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995). 

# D. The 

### Government's 

### July 7, 2016 

### Motion To Dismiss The Jun e

### 22,2016 Amended 

### Complaint, Pursuant To RCFC f

### 2OXl). 

# 1, The 

### Government's Argument.
The Government argues 

### thatthe United States 

### Court

### of Federal

### Claims does 

### not have 

### jurisdiction to adjudicate any of the claims alleged in the June22,2016 Amended 

### complaint. Gov. Mot. at

### 4. The Government reads the June

### 22,2016 Amended 

### complaint to identify six possible claims: 

### (l) wrongful conviction; (2) unjust imprisonment; (3) violation 

### ofdue process rigtrts under 

### the 

### Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; 

### (4) violation 

### of the Sixth and 

### Eighth Amindments;(5) improper 

### custody

### of a member 

### of the Menominee 

### Indian 

### Tribe 

### in violation 

### of the Fifth

Amendment's Takings Clause; and 

### (6) improper application 

### of the "contract 

### provisions" 

### of the Adam Walsh 

### Act.
First, the Due Process Clause 

### ofthe Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not mandate the payment 

### of money and thus do not provide a cause 

### of action under theTucker

### Act. Gov. Mot. at

## 6. Similarly, the Sixth and Eighth Amendments do not mandate money damages. Gov. Mot. at 6. 

### Although the court has

### jurisdiction 

### to adjudicate claims alleging a

### violation 

### of the 

### Fifth Amendment's Takings 

### clause, a

### valid takings 

### claim must allege that 

### the Govemment 

### lawfully seized private property 

### for public use, without 

### just compensation. 

### Cov. 

### Mot. at

### 6 (citing Ruth Energt, Inc. 

### v. United States,247 F.3d 1355, 1365 (Fed.

### Cir.200l)). Because the June 

### 22,2016 Amended Complaint alleged that the Government's actionswere

### wrongful and illegal, the takings claim does not satisfy the pleading requirements to establish

### jurisdiction under the Takings Clause. Gov. Mot. at 6. 

### To the extentthat the June

### 22,2016 Amended 

### complaint alleges that 

### the 

### united states 

### District Court 

### for the Eastem 

### District 

### of Wisconsin 

### wrongfully convicted 

### Plaintiff, that clarm would require the court 

### to review the merits

### ofa federal 

### district court 

### decision. Gov. 

### Mot. at 5. But, the United States Court 

### ofFederal Claims "does not have

### jurisdiction to review the merits 

### of
adecision rendered by afederal district 

### court." Gov. 

### Mot. at 5 (quoting ,s/,il necock Indian Nation v. United States,782 

### F.3d 1345, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Moreover, the court does not have

### jurisdiction to adjudicate claims 

### for compensation due 

### to unjust imprisonment, unless 

### a

### plaintiffs "conviction has been reversed 

### or set aside 

### on the ground that he is not 

### guilty 

### ofthe offense 

### ofwhich hewas convicted, or

. . . he has been pardoned upon the stated ground 

### of innocence and unjust 

### conviction." Gov. 

### Mot.

## atit seea/so 2g 

### U.s.c. $2513(a). 

### Plaintiffs conviction, however, has not been reversed or pardoned. Gov. 

### Mot. at 7. 

### Finally, although the court has

### jurisdiction to adjudicate breach

### of contract claims against the United States, the June22,2016 Amended Complaint does not allege acontractual relationship between 

### Plaintiffand the 

### united states, instead the "contract 

### provisions" of the Adam 

### walshAct is

### cited. Gov. Mot. at 7.



# 2, Plaintil?sResponse.
Plaintiff respond sthat, under Moden v. [Jnitedstates,404 F.3d 1335 (Fed. 

### cir.2005), the court.has 

### jurisdiction to adjudicate a

### plaintiffs claim alleging a

### violation of a money-mandating constitutional provision, statute, 

### or regulation unless the 

### claim is 

### "so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by 

### prior [case law], or otherwise completely devoid 

### of merit as not

### to involve afederal 

### controversy." 

### Id. at 1341. The June

### 22,2016 Amended

### complaint's Fifth Amendment takings 

### claim alleges a

### violation 

### of a money-mandating constitutional 

### provision and 

### is not completely devoid of 

### merit. Therefore, the court at least 

### hasjurisdiction to adjudicate that claim.

# E. The 

### Court's Resolution. 

# l. The 

### Court Does Not Have 

### Jurisdiction Over 

### Any Claims Alleged 

### In The June 22, 2016 Amended 

### Complaint.
The June

### 22,2016 Amended Complaint alleges that the Government violated 

### Plaintif|s Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as

### well asthe

### wolf River Treaty

### of 1854. 

### Am. compl. 

### at

# l-2. Plaintiff does 

### not specify how the Govemment 

### violated the enumerated 

### constitutional provisions, except 

### by alleging

### thatthe Menominee 

### Tribal 

### court wrongfully transferred 

### Plaintiff into the Government's custody and that the 

### United States 

### District Court 

### for the Eastem 

### District

### of wisconsin wrongfully convicted and imprisoned 

### him.

### Am.compl.atl-2. The June

### 22,2016 Amended Complaint also allegesthat the United States 

### District Court for the Eastem 

### District of Wisconsin 

### wrongfully applied theAdam Walsh 

### Act. Am. Compl. at 2. As the Government argued, the court does not have

### jurisdiction to adjudicate any 

### of the constitutional claims alleged in the June

### 22,2016 Amended

### complaint. "The law is

### well settled thatthe Due Process clauses

### of both the 

### Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not mandatethe payment of money and thus do not provide a cause

### of action undertheTucker

### Act." see smith v. United states,709 F.3d I I 14, I I 

### l6 (Fed. 

### cir. 2013). Likewise, the courr does not have

### jurisdiction 

### to adjudicate 

### claims based 

### on 

### the Sixth and Eighth Amendments, because 

### neither 

### is moneymandating. see 

### Milas v. united states,42 Fed. 

### c1.704,710 (1999) 

### ("[T]he

. . .Sixth Amendment[] 

### [is] not money mandating and, consequently, cannot combine 

### with theTucker

### Act to provide the court

### jurisdiction;'), aff'd per curiam, 217 F.3d 854 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1999); see

### also Trafny 

### v. United states, 503 F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed.

### cir. 2007) (quoting Edelmann v. United states, 76 Fed.

### cl. 376, 383 

### (2007) ("The Court 

### of Federal Claims does not have

### jurisdiction over claims arising under the EighthAmendment, as 

### Iit] 'is not a money-mandating 

### provision."')
To the extent that the June22, 2016Amended Complaint alleges a

### violation ofthe Takings Clause, the court does not have

### jurisdiction to adjudicate that 

### claim. 

### "ln determining whether the 

### [court] has

### jurisdiction, [the 

### court must determine] that 

### the [relevant] 

### claim 

### is fognded upon a money-mandating source and [that] the 

### plaintiffhas made anonfrivolous allegation that it is

### within the class 

### of plaintiffs entitled 

### to recover under the money-mandating

### source." Jan's Helicopter Serv., 

### Inc. v. 

### F.A.A., 525 

### F.3d 1299, 1309 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2008) (emphasis 

### added). Althougtr the Takings clause is money-mandating, 

### "[a] claimant under theTakings clause must show that the government, by some specific action, took a private property interest for a public usewithout

### just compensation." Adams v. united 

### states,3gl F.3d

## l2l2,l2l 8 (Fed.

### cir. 2004). 

### TheJune22.20l6 Amended 

### Complaint does 

### not allege that 

### the Government interfered 

### with Plaintiff 

### s orivate property 

### interests. Instead, 

## it claims that the Government 

### violated the 

### Fifth Amendment by 

### wrongfully convicting 

### and imprisoning 

## plaintiff. Therefore,

### the June

### 22,2016 Amended Complaint 

### fails to make a nonfrivolous allegation that 

### Plaintiff is

### within the class

### of claimants entitled 

### to recover under the Takings 

### Clause. As such, the court does 

### not have 

### iurisdiction to adjudicate this claim.
The court has

### jurisdiction to "renderjudgment upon any claim for damages by any person unjustly convicted 

### ofan offense against the United States and 

### imprisoned."

## zt u.S.c.-g r+rs. But, for the court to adjudicate such aclaim, the 

### plaintiff must satisfy the requirements 

### orzs 

### u.s.c. $

### 2513. see Grayson v. unitecl states, 

## l4l ct. 

### cl. 866 ( I958) (explaining that28

### u.s.c g$ 1495and 2513 must be read together); seealso See Chevalier v. United States,329 F.

### App'x 924, 926

(Fed. 

### Cir.2009). Section 2513, provides that any person suing the Govemment under section 1495 must allege: 

### [that] [h]is conviction has been reversed

### or set aside on the ground that he is not 

### guilty ofthe offense of which he was convicted, or on new

### trial or rehearing hewas found 

### not

### guilty of such offense, as appears 

### from the record 

### or certificate 

### of the court setting aside or reversing such conviction, or that he has been pardoned upon the stated ground

### of innocence and unjust 

### conviction[.]
28 U.S.C. 2513(a)(l

# ). The June 

### 22,2016 Amended Complaint, however, does 

### not allegethat 

### Plaintiffs conviction was reversed or set aside or that 

### Plaintiff subsequently was found not 

### guilty or pardoned 

### ofthe relevant offenses. Therefore, the court does not have

### jurisdiction to adjudicate 

### Plaintiff s unjust conviction and imprisonment claims. Finally, the court does not have

### jurisdiction to adjudicate claims based on either the Adam 

### walsh 

### Act or the

## wolf River Treaty 

## of 1854, because 

### neither 

### "can

### fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government," Testan, 424 tJ.S. at

### 400. TheAdam walsh 

### Act establishes 

### a comprehensive national system 

### for the registration 

### of sex 

### offenders. ,see42 U.S.C. 

### $ 16901. But, none

### of its provisions mandate the payment

### of money 

### to registered sex 

### offenders' The

### Wolf River Treaty 

### of 1854 provides thatthe Menominee 

### Tribe

### will cede 

### tribal lands to the Government in exchange

### for atemporary settlement on the

### wolf River, sponsorship 

### of various 

### public welfare programs and payment 

### of $242,686. The Treaty does not contain any language

### that can

### fairly be interpreted 

### as mandating compensation 

### by the Govemment to 

### individual members 

### of the Menominee

### Tribe. Moreover, the court does not have iurisdiction to adjudicate 

### the

### wolf River Treaty 

### claim under

### 28 

### u.s.c. g 1505-providing that 

### "[r]he united States Court 

### of Federal Claims [has]

### jurisdiction 

### ofany claim against the United States accruing

. 

### . . 

### in favor 

### of any 

### tribe, band, 

### or other 

### identifiable group 

### of American 

### Indians"-because that provision does not apply to actions brought 

### by individual members 

### of IndianTribes and the June 

### 22, 2016 Amended 

### complaint only alleges 

### injuries

### to plaintiff as 

### an individual


# . see Fields v. 

### united states, 423 F.2d 380, 383 

### (ct.

## cl. 1970) 

### ("[S]ince the instant case is one broueht bv 

### individual Indians and not atribe, band, or identifiable group 

### of Indians

. . .defendant is

### coiecr in asserting that section 1505 does not apply to the present case.").



# 2. The June 22, 2016 Amended 

### Complaint Should 

### Not be

### Transferred To A United States 

### District Court, pursuant To 2g U.S.C. $ 1631. 

### Title 28 U.S.C. g

### l63l provides: [w]henever a

### civil action is

### filed in a court asdefined in section 610 ofthis

### title or an appeal, including apetition for review 

### of administrative action, is noticed for or 

### filed 

### with such a court and that court finds that there is awant 

### ofjurisdiction, the court shall, 

## if it is in the interest 

### ofjustice, transfer such action 

### or appeal 

### to any other such court inwhich the action or appeal could have been 

### broughfat the

### timi it was 

### filed or noticed, and the action or appeal shall proceed as

### if it had been 

### filedin or noticed

### for the court to

### which 

### it istransfered on the date upon 

### which it was actually

### filed in or noticed for the courtfrom which 

### it istransfened.
28 U.S.C. $ 1631.


### The United States 

### Court

### of Federal 

### Claims 

### is authorized 

### to transfer 

### the June 

### 22,2016 Amended 

### Complaint, but only when 

### the conditions 

### of section 

### 163l are 

### met. ,See Tex. peanut Farmers 

### v. United 

### States,409 F.3d 1370, 1375 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2005) 

### ("tTlhe 

### trial courr could have orderedtransfer

### without being asked 

### to do so 

### by either 

### party[.]"). The decision totransfer rests 

### within the discretion 

### ofthe transferor c

### ourt. see 

### In 

### re vistaprint Ltd.,628 F.3d 1342, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (recognizing that 

### "[the] trial court has broaddiscretion intransfer decisions"); see also Christianson 

### v. Colt 

### Industies Operating 

### Corp.,486 U.S. 800, 

### Sl6-17 (l9SS) (holding that a transfer order should be affirmed unless 

### "clearly erroneous"). In order for a case to betransferred under section 163 I ,the court must determine that: ( I) thetransferring court lacks subject matter 

### jurisdiction; (2) the case could have been brought in the transferee court atthetime the case was 

### filed; and 

### (3)transfer 

### is inthe interest

### ofjustice. see Tex. peanut 

### Farmers, 409 F.3d 

### at 1374 (holding that transfer is appropriate under section 163 

### I when the court finds that there is awant

### of jurisdiction, the action 

### could have 

### timely been brought 

### in another 

### court, andtransfer 

### is 

### in the interest

### ofjustice).
Inthis case, the

### first requirement

### of section I631 is satisfied, because the court does not have subject matter 

### jurisdiction over the claims alleged in the June22, 2016 Amended Complaint. But, transfer would not be in the interest

### ofjustice, because the lune 22,2016 Amended Complaint also failsto state a

### claim uponwhich 

### reliefcan be granted. See Faullorcr v. (Jnited States,45Fed. 

### cI.54,56(1999)("If...transferwould...befutile...thedecidingcourtmaydeclinetotransfer the case 

### and dismiss 

## it;'); see 

### also Bunch

### v. Llnited states, 

### 7g F.3d 605 (Fed.

## cir. 1996) 

### ("[T]ransfer 

### is likely 

### to be

### futile, andthus 

### not 

## 'in the interest 

### ofjustice' as [section] 163l requires.") 

### (unpublished). The June 

### 22,2016 Amended 

### complaint alliges nofacts that altow the courtto draw a reasonable inference that the defendant 

### is liable 

### for the misconduct 

### alleeed. See Ashcroft v. 

### Iqbal,556 

### u.s. 662 

### (2009). It contains

### only "the-defendant-un lawfully-ha-rmed-me accusation[s]." 

### Id. at

### 678. Therefore, the court has determined that the June 

### 22,2016 Amended Complaint would not survive amotion to dismiss for failure to state aclaim sothat transfer, under section 163

### l, would not be in the interest 

### ofjustice.



# 3, Plaintiffs September 

### 20,2016 

### Motion For Leave 

### To File 

### A Second 

### Amended 

### Complaint Is Denied.



# _ Under 

### RCFC l5(a), a party may amend its pleadings once as a matter

### of course. ,,ln all other cases 

### [however] a 

### party may amend 

### its preading 

### onlywith the opposing 

### party,s written consent 

### or the 

### court's 

### leave. The court should 

### freely 

### give leave 

### [to amend] when

### justice so 

### requires." RCFC 

### l5(a)(2). But, the court may exercise 

### its 

### discrettn to deny leave

## lt it nna, evidence

## of" undue delay, bad faith or 

### dilatory motive on the part 

### ofthe movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue 

### of allowance 

### of the amendment, 

### [or]

### futility of amendment." Foman

# v.'barxlilt u.s. t78, 

### t82 0962\.

### "Futifity ofthe proposed amendment is an adequate reason to deny leav 

### eto amend." 

### Cultor

Corp. v.A.E. Stsley 

### Mfg. Co.,224 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### 2000). "When a parry faces the 

### possibility

### of being denied leave

### to amend on the ground 

### offutility, that party must



### . . . 

### proffer sufficient facts supporting the amended pleading that the claim could survive adispositive pretrial 

### motion." Kemin Foods, 

### L.C. v. Pigmentos Vegetales 

### Del Centro S.A. de 

### C.V.,464 F.3d 1339, 1354-55 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### 2006). Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 20, 2016, but it does not allege any new claims; instead 

### it simply reiterates allegations raised in the June22, 2016 Amended Complaint and lists a number 

### of federal statutes, 

### without any explanation 

### of how they apply tothis case. For the reasons discussed herein, the claims alleged 

### inthe September 

### 20, 2016 Second 

### Amended Complaint 

### would 

### not survive 

### a motion

## to dismiss, pursuant 

## to RCFC 

### l2(bxl). Therefore, the 

### court has determined that amendment 

### would be

### futile and denies the 

### Plaintiffs September 20, 2016 

### Motion. 

# IV. CONCLUSION.
For the reasons discussed herein,

### the Govemment's July

### 7,2016 Motionto Dismiss is granted. ,see 

### RcFc l2(bX1). The 

### clerk is directed to dismiss the 

### March 18,2016 

### complaint.



### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED.

G. 

### BRADEN. Jadge