# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

(Pro Se)

JULIO ARMANDO BRUNET

On behalf of THE KINGDOM OF BRUNET,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 20

- 1397C (Filed: February 24, 2021 )

OPINION AND ORDER

KAPLAN, Judge.

Plaintiff Julio Armando Brunet, proceeding pro se (purportedly on behalf of an entity he

calls “ The Kingdom of Brunet ” ) , filed this civil action against the United States on October 13, 2020. Compl., Docket No. 1

. Simultaneously

, he filed a n Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ( “ IFP application ” )

, Docket No. 2.

In support of his complaint, Plaintiff includes a supplementary 65

- page handwritten

document intended to outlin e the bas e s of his claim s , Docket No. 1

- 3, and a typed document consisting of 17 appendices to that handwritten document. Docket No. 1

- 4. Plaintiff also filed a motion alleging that the case is captioned incorrectly, and requesting an order directing the

Office of the Clerk to sub stitute “ The Kingdom of Brunet ” in place of Julio Armando Brunet

. Mot. to Remove Pl. from Case (“Pl.’s Mot.”), Docket No. 13

. According to Mr. Brunet, in this

case he is acting on behalf of the Kingdom , which is the true plaintiff and the “ real owner of [A rmando] Brunet (body). ” Pl.’s Mot. ; see also IFP application at 1.

On December 11, 2020, the government filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Brunet ’ s complaint for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction and/or failure to state a claim pursuant to Rules 12(b)(l) and 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ( “ RCFC ” ). Def. ’ s Mot. t o Dismiss, Docket No. 12. Plaintiff has not responded to the government ’ s motion.

For the reasons se t forth below, Mr. Brunet ’ s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis is

DENIED and the case is DISMISSED in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)

. The

government ’ s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a

claim is therefore DENIED as moot.2 DISCUSSION

Mr. Brunet is currently incarcerated at the Yazoo City Federal Correctional Complex in Mississippi. Mr. Brunet ’ s complaint broadly accuses the United States of “ unlawful imprisonment, ” alleging that the government “ failed to release ” the body of “Julio Armando

Brunet” to whom he refers to in the third person . Compl. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that he is owed

hundreds of millions of dollars in “ tort conversion ” damages arising from the “ unl awful use, dominion, and incarceration ” of “ the body ” by the United States. App. to Compl. at 1 , 32

, Docket No. 1

- 3 ; Pl. ’ s Mot. at 19

– 20

. Plaintiff also seeks an “ in camera and personam hearing, ” App. to Compl. at 11, a protective order, id. at 63, the issuance of a diplomatic passport, id. at 64, and, ostensibly, his release from federal custody, id. at 25.

The plaintiff ’ s allegations are laid out in more than 100 pages of repetitive, disjointed,

assertions laced with legal jargon . Mr. Bru net alleges that the United States has breached a

“ contractually binding agreement ” based on allegedly “ valid, lawful, enforceable ‘ contracts, ’ real or presumed, expressed or implied, revealed or unrevealed. ” App. to Compl. at 43, 45. Presumably, Plaintiff refers to what he goes on to describe as the “‘ social compact ’ (contract) known as the Constitution (charter) of the United States. ” Id. at 48.

In addition to repeatedly alleging “ tort conversion, ” Plaintiff alleges that the United

States has wrongfully incarcerated him

, and/ or that the “ true ” plaintiff

— the Kingdom of

Brunet

— has been deprived of some property (plaintiff’s body?) by way of that incarceration. App. to Compl. at 1. Finally, Plaintiff ’ s motion to change the case caption alleges add itional unspecified violations of Article 5 of the United Nations ’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Pl. ’ s Mot. at 9, and various provisions of the United States Constitution

, id. at 15.

As noted, Mr. Brunet is seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. “ Section 1915 of Title 28 enables federal courts to allow a person to commence an action without prepayment of court fees, so long as the person provides a sworn affidavit est ablishing his or her inability to pay. ” Manning v. United States , 123 Fed. Cl. 679, 681 (2015). However, § 1915 requires the court to dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it “ is frivolous or malicious. ”

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 1 “ Frivolous ” refers not just to “ the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation. ” Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Though the court may not dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint simply because it finds the factual allegations therein “ unlikely, ” Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992), it has an obligation

to dismiss “ claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, ” Neitzke , 490 U.S. at 327

– 28. Accordingly

— and in contrast with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, in which the

court must “ accept as true all undisputed facts asserted in the plaintiff ’ s complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, ” Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States , 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011 )

— § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) grants the court “ the unusual power to

1 For the purposes of title 28 of the United States Code, this Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate applications to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 2503(d) (deeming the

Court of Federal Claims to be a “ court of the United States ” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915).3 pierce the veil of the complaint ’ s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. ” Neitzke , 490 U.S. at 327.

“ [A] finding of factual frivolousness is ap propriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible. ” Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); see,

e.g. , Jackson v. United States , 612 F. App ’ x 997, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal of a

“ claim seekin g $10 billion from the United States for the use of his purported hurricane prevention device ” ); Manning , 123 Fed. Cl. at 684

– 85 (dismissing as irrational and wholly incredible plaintiff ’ s allegations that he had created an interstellar spaceship and weath er machine and seeking $1 trillion in damages based on the alleged infringement or taking of intellectual property by the United States).

After carefully attempting to parse each of the Plaintiffs ’ claims, the Court finds “ that no part of the complaint i s grounded in factual or legal reality. ” Double Lion Uchet Express Tr. v.

United States , 149 Fed. Cl. 415, 422 (2020). Plaintiff alleges that he is acting as the “ authorized representative ” of an entity “ created in Spain by the Brunet ’ s family, ” and thus s hould be treated as a foreign entity, and that the Kingdom owns the “ private portable real estate (the body) of ” Armando Brunet and is entitled to demand the release of such as private property. App. to Pl. ’ s Mot. at 2

– 4, 10 , Docket No. 13

- 1 . These “ fancif ul factual allegation[s]

, ” which appear to constitute the gravamen of the complaint and Mr. Brunet’s other filings, fall squarely within the purview of those which § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) obligates this Court to dismiss. Neitzke , 490 U.S. at

325.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, P laintiff ’ s application to proceed in forma pauperis

, D ocke t No. 2, is DENIED

. In addition, having found Mr. Brunet ’ s claims frivolous, the complaint is DISMISSED in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The government ’ s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim

, Docket No.

12

, is DENIED as moot

, as is P laintiff ’ s motion to change the caption on the docket, D ocke t No.

13

. The Clerk shall ent er judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.



## Elaine D. Kaplan

ELAINE D. KAPLAN Judge