# 0R10ts[$Al' l|n tlle 

# @nfte! $tates 

# {,ourt of

# /elerst @tsfms No. l5-419 C Filed: July

### 22,2015 

### NOTTO BE 

### PUBLISHED
,t,* * * {.* * :f ,r r.* {. {. r.* * * {.* **,t * * {(*'* {. r.*'* ''rt * {.**,t :1.*

CHARLES 

### HUNTER a/k/a

# KHALEEL * 

# FILED
JUL 2

### 2 2015 U.S. COURT OF FEDERALCLAIMg THEODORE 

### WATKINS a/k/a 

### ABDULLAH, Plaintiff, 

### pro se,

THE 

### UNITED STATES, Defendant.

* * +* +* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * !** * **

Theodore 

### Watkins, pro se, 

### Robert 

### M. Norway, United States Department of Justice, 

### Civil Division, Washington, D.C., Counsel for the Govemment.



### MEMORANDUM OPINION AND 

### FINAL ORDER BRADEN, "/adge. 

# I, RELEVANTFACTUALBACKGROUND,' On

### April 29, 1976, a

### jury in the 

### Detroit Recorder's Court2 

### l"Michigan State Court") convicted Theodore Watkins for Assault

### with Intentto 

### Murder. Compl. at

### 2. On May 20, 1976, the Michigan State Court sentenced 

### Mr. Watkins to aterm 

### offive years' 

### probation. Compl. at 2.



### I The relevant facts were 

### derived

### fromthe

### April 27,2015 Complaint 

### ("Compl.") and attached exhibits ("P1. 

### Ex. 

### l-3").

2On October 1, 1997, the Detroit Recorder's Court merged into the

### Third Judicial 

### Circuit of 

### Michigan. See 

### Mich. Comp. Laws $

### 600.9931(l) ("The recorder's court 

### of the 

### city of DetroitOn September

### 29,1980, 

### Mr. Watkins pled 

### guilty to Attempted 

### Malicious Destruction

### of

Personal Property and the 

### Michigan State Court sentenced him to aterm of 

### two years' probation. Compl. at

## 2. Mr. Watkins also continued the term 

### of probation 

### from his previous sentenca to five years' 

### probation. Compl. at

### 2-3. 

### On December 

### 20, 1981, 

### Mr. Watkins was arrested 

### and arraigned 

### on charges 

### that he violated probation and failed to 

### report. Compl. at

### 3. On December 22, 1981, the Michigan State Court held a hearing and a 

### guilty plea was 

### entered. Pl. 

### Ex.

## 3. The Complaint allegesthat Mr. Watkins did not consent to plead 

### guilty, but instead stood

### silently. Compl.at3. On January

### 6, 1982, the 

### Michigan State Court sentenced 

### Mr. Watkins to a prison term

### of sevento fifteen years

### for violation of his

### first term 

### of probation and a prisonterm 

### of one to two years

### for violation 

### of his second 

### term

### of probation. Compl. 

### at

# 3. This sentence 

### was later "vacated on

### jurisdictional grounds," but 

### Mr. Watkins' guilty plea was not setaside. Compl. at 3. The 

### April 27 

### ,2015 Complaint does not specify 

### if or for how long 

### Mr. Watkins was incarcerated. 

# il. PROCEDURALHISTORY.
On 

### April 27,2015, 

### Mr. Watkins 

### ("Plaintiff') filed a Complaint in the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims seeking injunctive 

### relief and $10,000,000 

### in "statutory and 

### punitive" damages 

### ("Complaint"). Compl. at

# 4. The Complaint alleges

### that 

### Mr. Watkins, as

### a member 

### of the Newaubian 

### Nation 

## of Moors 

### of the Creek 

### Nation, was deprived

## of procedural protections guaranteed to sovereign nations, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1604 and 22 C.F.R. S92.12.3 Compl. at 

## 3-4. The Complaint also alleges that the Government 

### did not 

### follow appropriate procedures to


### is abolished and merged 

### with the 

### third

### judicial circuit 

### of the 

### circuit court effective October 1, 19e7.").

328 U.S.C. g 1604 provides: Subject 

### to existing intemational agreements to 

### which the 

### United States is a party 

### at the 

### time

### of enactment 

### of this

### Act aforeign state 

### shall be immune

### from the 

### jurisdiction 

### ofthe courts 

### ofthe United States and 

### ofthe States except as provided in sections 1605

### to i607 of this chaoter. 28 U.S.C. $ 1604.
22 C.F.R. $ 92.12 provides: 

### A notarizing 

### officer must execute awritten certificate attesting to the performance 

### ofa notarial act. This certificate may be inserted on or appended 

### to the notarized document.

. .

## . The certificate evidences

### the performance 

### of the notarial act. Failure

### to executethis certificate renders the notarial act 

### legally ineffective. Each 

### notarial act should be evidenced 

### by a separate certificate; 

### two or more distinct notarial acts should not be attested to by one certificate. 22 C.F.R. $ 92.12 

### lintemal citation omined;.

### "remove 

### [his] 

### immunity." Compl. 

### at

## 3. The Complaint does 

### not specify

### which arrests and

convictions reflect the alleged procedural violations. On

### April 27,2015, 

### Plaintiff also 

### filed an

### Application to Proceed 

### In Forma Pauperis that the court granted on May 

### 26,2015. On June 

### 12,2015, the Government 

### filed a 

### Motion To Dismiss 

### ("Gov't Mot."), pursuant 

### to Rules 

### l2(b)(1) and 12(bX6)

### of the Rules

### of the United States 

### Court

## of Federal Claims 

### C'RCFC), for lack 

### of subject matter 

### jurisdiction andfailure to state aclaim. 

# III. DISCUSSION. 

# A. Jurisdiction. The 

### United States 

### Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims has

### jurisdiction under 

### the Tucker

### Act, 28 

### U.S.C.

### $ 1491, 

### "to render 

### judgment upon 

### any claim against the 

### United Statesfounded 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,

### or

### for liquidated 

### or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in

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

### la91(a)(1). TheTucker Act, however, is "a 

### jurisdictional statute; 

## it does 

### not create 

### any substantive 

### right enforceable against

### the United States 

### for money damages



### . . .

## . [T]he 

### Act merely confers

### jurisdiction upon [the United States Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims] whenever the substantive 

### right 

### exists." United Stutes

### v. Testan,424 

### u.s. 392, 398 (1976). To pursue a substantive 

### right undertheTucker 

### Act, a

### plaintiff must 

### identify and plead an independent contractual relationship, Constitutional 

### provision, federal statute, and/or executive agency regulation 

### that provides

### a substantive 

### right 

### to money 

### damages. SeeTodd 

### v. United States,386 

### F.3d 1091, 1094 (Fed. 

### Cir.2004) ("[J]urisdiction under the Tucker 

### Act requires the litigant to 

### identify a substantive 

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

### Act[.]"); seealso 

### Fisherv. United States, 402 F.3d, 1167

### , 1172 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2005) (en banc) 

### ("The Tucker

# Act... does 

### not create a substantive cause 

### of action;



### . . .a 

### plaintiff must identify a separate source

### of substartive 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 by the Federal 

### Government[.]" Testan, 

### 424 U.S. at

### 400. And,the 

### plaintiff bears the burden

### of establishing

### jurisdiction by a preponderance 

### of the 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 apreponderance 

### ofthe evidence."). 

# B. Standard 

### Of Review 

### For Pro Se 

### 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 stdngent standards 

### than formal pleadings drafted by 

### lawyers"). This court 

### traditionally examines the record 

### "to see

### if [apro se] 

### plaintiff hasacauseof action somewhere 

### displayed." Ruderer

### v. United States,412F.2d, 1285,1292 (Ct.

### Cl. 1969). Nevertheless, 

### while the court may excuse ambiguities 

### in a

### pro se

### plaintiffs

complaint, the court "does not excuse [a 

### complaint's]

### failures." Henke 

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

### Cir. 1995). 

# C. Standards 

### For Motion To Dismiss. 

# l. Under 

### RCFC 

### l2(b)(l). A challenge tothe 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 1310, 1313 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1999); see a/sa 

### RCFC 12(b)(l) ("Every defenseto a claim for 

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

. . .

## . But a party may assert the

### following defenses by motion: (1) lack 

### of subject-matter 

### jurisdiction 

### [.]"). When considering whether to dismiss an action 

### for lack 

### ofsubject matter 

### jurisdiction, the court is "obligated to assume 

### all factual allegations 

### ofthe complaint to be true and to draw 

### all reasonable inferences in 

### plaintiff s

### favor." Henke,60 F .3d at 797

. 

# 2. Under 

### RCFC 12(bX6). 

## A challenge 

### to the United States 

### Court

## of Federal 

### Claims' 

### "[ability] to exercise its general power 

### with regard

### to the facts peculiar 

### to the specific 

### claim



### . . . is raised 

### by 

### a [Rule] 

### l2(b)(6) 

### motionf.l" Palmer, 168 

### F.3d

### at 

## l3l3; see also 

### RCFC 12(bX6) 

### ("Every defense

### to a claim for 

### reliefin any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading

. . .

## . But aparty may assert the

### following defenses by 

### motion:

. . . (6) failure 

### to state a claim upon which 

### relief can be granted[.]").
When considering whether to dismiss an action 

### for failure to state a claim, the court must assess whether 

### "a claim has been stated adequately" andthen whether 

### "it may be supported by 

### [a] showing 

### [ofl any set

### of facts consistent

### with the allegations 

### in the 

### complaint." Bell Atl. Corp. v.

### Twombil, 550 

### U.S. 544, 563 

### (2007), The plaintiff 

### s factual allegations 

### must be substantial enoughto raise the right to 

### relief "above the speculative 

### level." Id. at

### 555. The court must accept 

### all factual allegations 

### in the complaint as true and make 

### all reasonable inferences 

### in favor 

### ofthe 

### plaintiff. Ashcroft v. 

### Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

### 678J9 (2009). 

# D. The Government's June 12,2015 

### Motion To Dismiss. 

# 1. The Governmentts Argument. The Government argues that the

### April 2'/ 

### ,2015 Complaint should be dismissed, because the United States 

### Court

### of Federal Claims does not have

### jurisdiction 

### to adjudicate either claim. 

### Gov't Mot. at 

### 1. The 

### United States Court 

### of Federal Claims has no

### jurisdiction over state court 

### criminal proceedings. 

### Gov't Mot. at

## 3. And,the Complaint 

### did not allege 

### aviolation

### of a money-mandating statute, as required 

### by the Tucker

## Act. Gov't Mot. at

# 3. In addition,

## if Plaintiff was incarcerated 

### by the State

### of Michigan, the 

### United States 

### Court

### of Federal Claims does not have subject matter

### jwisdiction. Gov't Mot. at 6 (citing 28 U.S.C. g 1495 ("The United States 

### Court

### of Federal 

### Claims shall have 

### jurisdiction 

### to render

### judgment upon any 

### claim fordamages 

## by any person 

### unjustly convicted 

## of an offense 

### against

### the United States and

imprisoned.") (emphasis added)). 

### In the alternative,

### the

### April 27,2015 Complaint 

### "has 

### not made 

### factual allegations sufficient 

### to support the 

### limited category 

### of wrongful incarceration claims that could 

### fallwithin the

### jurisdiction of the 

### Court." 

### Gov'tMot. 

### at9. Specifically, the

### April 27,2015 Complaint "does not allegethat 

### [Plaintiff] was convicted 

### ofan offense against the United States, as required by 28 

### U.S.C.

# 1495, because, 

### as shown 

### by the attachments

### to the complaint, 

### [Plaintiffl was convicted 

### by a 

### Michigan state 

### court." Gov't Mot. at

### 9-10. And,the 

### Aprll 27,2015 Complaint "does 

### not allege 

### that 

### his conviction has been reversed 

### or set aside, as required 

### by 28 U.S.C. 

### 2513(a)(l)."4 Gov't Mot. at

## 9 10. 

# 2. Plaintiff s

### Argument. Plaintiff did not

### file a Response to the Government's June 12, 2015 

### Motion To Dismiss. 

# 3. The 

### Court's Resolution. The court 

### is cognizant 

### of its obligation 

### to liberally construe 

### pro se 

### plaintiffs' pleadings. See 

### Eslelle

### v. Gamble,429 U.S. 

### 97,106 (197 

### 6) (holding that the 

### "pro se document 

### is

### to be 

### liberally construed"). But, 

### pro se 

### plaintiffs must 

### still "comply 

### with the applicable 

### rules

### of procedural and substantive 

### law." I|'alsh v. United States,3 Cl. Ct. 539, 541 (1983). 

### Underthe Tucker 

### Act, the United States 

### Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims has

### jurisdiction to adjudicate 

### "any claim against the 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, or 

### for liquidated or unliquidated damages 

### in cases not sounding 

### in

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

### $ 1491(a)(1). To the extentthat the

### April 27,2015 Complaint 

### is directed againstthe State 

### of Michigan, the

### Third Judicial 

### Circuit of Michigan, or private individuals and members 

### of the state

### judiciary, no 

### claim is alleged against 

### the 

### United States. Therefore, the 

### court does 

### not have subject matter

## jurisdiction. See

## 28 U.S.C.

# 5 l49l(a)(1); United States v. 

### Sherwood,

### 312 U.S. 584, 

### 588 (1941) (holding 

### that 

## a suit "could 

### not have been maintained 

### in the Court 

### of Claims because that court 

### iswithout iurisdiction of anv suit brousht against private parties").

428 U.S.C. g 2513, in relevant part, provides: (a)

### Any person suing under section 1495of this 

### title must allege and prove that: 

## (l) His conviction has been reversed 

### or set aside 

### on the ground 

### that he 

### is not 

### guilty 

### of the offense

### of which he was convicted, 

### or on new 

### trial or rehearing he was 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 uponthe stated ground ofinnocence and unjust conviction. 28 U.S.C. $2513(a)(1).The Tucker 

### Act authorizes the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims 

### to adjudicate 

### "any

claim for damages by any person unjustly convicted 

### of an offenseagainst the United States

### ald imprisoned." 28 U.S.C. 

## $ 1495 (emphasis

### added). To the extent 

### thatthe

### April 27

## , 2015 

### Complaint alleges 

### claims against 

### the United States Department

### of State, however, 

### it does not adequately allege a 

### claim under 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1495 that governs claims 

### for damages 

### by persons 

### unjustly convicted and imprisoned 

### of offenses against 

### the United States. The

### April 27,2015 Complaint neither alleges that 

### Plaintiff was unjustly convicted 

### of an offense againstthe United States 

### nor asserts 

### that the United States Department

### of State 

### or other federal agency caused 

### Plaintiff s

### injury. Instead, 

### it claims that 

### Plaintiff s

### injury resulted 

### from the State 

### of Michigan's failure to

### follow appropriate federal procedures. Compl. at 2. 

### Similarly, none

### of the statutes 

### the

### April 27,2015 Complaint cites 

### in support 

### of the sovereign 

### immunity 

### claim are money-mandating. 

### Although

### the

### April 27

## , 2015 Complaint alleges that the three 

### criminal cases should have been brought against 

### Mr. Watkins under 28 

### U.S.C. 

### $$ 1330-1331, 

### the United States 

### Court

### of Federal 

### Claims cannot adjudicate claims 

### arising exclusively 

## liom federal question 

### jurisdiction under

### 28 U.S.C.

## $ 1331. See 28 U.S.C. $ 1330 (goveming actions against foreign states); 28 U.S.C. $ 1331 

### ("The district courts shall have original 

### jurisdiction of all 

### civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or fieaties 

### of the 

### United States."); see also Addams-More 

### v. United States,296 F.

### App'x 45,47 (Fed. Cir. 

### 2008) 

### ("[T]he Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims 'lacks the general federal question 

### jurisdiction 

### of the district 

### courts."') (quoting Crockerv. United 

### States,l25 F.3d 1475,1476 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1997)). 

### In addition, there is no evidence that 

### Plaintifls conviction and incarceration were unjust. The

### April 27,2015 Complaint does not allege anyfinding 

### of innocence, a pardon, or acertificate 

### of innocence 

### to establish unjust 

### conviction under 28 U.S.C S

### 2513. See Vicin 

### v. United States, 468 F.2d 930, 933 

### (Ct. Cl. 1972) (holding that 

### "[t]he unjust 

### conviction statute has always been 

### strictly construed"). The 

### April27,20l5 Complaint only requests that the 

### guilty plea bevacated, evidencing that 

### Plaintiff sconviclions have not been reversed or set aside. 

# IV. CONCLUSION. For these reasons, the Govemment's June 

### 12,2015 Motion To Dismiss 

### is granted. See


### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED,
SU 

### BRADEN Judge