### Case 1:17-cv-02029-EDK Document 9 Filed 04/23/18 Page 1 of 4 

# FILED 

# 3Jn tbe Wniteb**~tate.s** 

# <!Court ofjfeberal <!Claim-S\PR 2 3 201s No. 17-2029 (Pro Se) (Filed: April 23, 2018 

## INot ForPublication) U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
JONATHON LARON FRlEND EL, Plaintiff,

v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERlCA, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

### ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-) Jonathon Laron FriendEl, Marion, NC, pro se. Keywords: Pro Se Plaintiff; Motionto Dismiss; Subject MatterJurisdiction.



### John 

### S. Groat, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department ofJustice, Washington, DC, withwhom were 

### DeborahA. Bynum, Assistant Director, 

### Robert

### E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and 

### ChadA. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, for Defendant.OPINION AND ORDER KAPLAN, Judge. PlaintiffJonathon Laron Friend El filed a complaint inthis Court on December 22, 2017. The government has movedto dismiss Mr. Friend El's complaint. For the reasons discussedbelow, the government's motionto dismiss is GRANTED. Accordingly, Mr. Friend El's complaint is DISMISSED withoutprejudice. BACKGROUND 1 Mr. Friend El is currently incarcerated in a state prison inNorth Carolina. See Friend v. Schatzman, No. 1:15CV231, 2015 WL 1346245, at *1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 2015). The allegations inhis complaintposit the existence ofa wide-ranging conspiracy to somehow commercialize the criminaljustice system for the financial benefit of(among others)judges andprosecutors. See Comp!. at 2-10, DocketNo. 1. In connectionwiththese claims, Mr. Friend El alleges thathe has been "unjustly convicted and imprisoned" because the "courts"

1 The facts set forth inthis section are based onthe allegations in Mr. Friend El's complaint, whichthe Court assumes are true for purposes ofdeciding the government's motionto dismiss, as well as onjurisdictional facts drawn from the documents attachedto the government's motion.


### 7017 1450 DODD 1346 4667

### Case 1:17-cv-02029-EDK Document 9 Filed 04/23/18 Page 2 of 4

that imposedhis sentence "are not 'Courts' as per the Constitution ofthe United States, but rather tribunals acting as private corporations." Comp!. at 1-2. Further, according to Mr. Friend El, the "alleged Criminal/Misdemeanor cases" against him "are really civil claims in equity." Id. at 2 (quotation omitted). He claims that the federal and state governments, acting in concert, "securitize" such cases through the following process: first, "[a]fter finding the alleged Defendant guilty," the clerk ofthe state court "sells thejudgmentsto the Federal Courts," after which "[t]hejudgments are ... taken to the federal Discountwindow," converted by some unspecified means into "notes," and then "pooled together and sold as bonds." Id. at 2-4. According to Mr. Friend El, "[s]aid bonds are liens against me."2 Id. at 4. Mr. Friend El asserts that has "never authorized the United States

... nor the State

... ofNorth Carolina, to securitize any documents in any case against me." Id. at 9. Further, he contends, "the [a ]ct ofengaging in commercial transactions on behalfof another

... without their knowledge, consent and authorization is fraud." Id. at 10 (emphasis omitted). Based onthese allegations, Mr. Friend El "demand[s] that [he] be immediately released from prison," apparently because his conviction was "fraud." Id. He also requests that "all funds from all cases ... be sentto [him] immediately" and thathis name "be removed from all government databases indicating bad credit." Id. at 11. Finally, he asks for $300,000,000 in damages and "[a]ny other relief/remedy th[e] Court deems appropriate." Id. 

### DISCUSSION In deciding a motionto dismiss for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction, the court accepts as true all undisputed facts inthe pleadings and draws all reasonable inferences in favor ofthe plaintiff. Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011).The court may, however, "inquire intojurisdictional facts" to determine whether it hasjurisdiction. Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d 991, 993 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Itis well establishedthat complaints filed by pro se plaintiffs (as is this one), are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Nonetheless, even pro se plaintiffs mustpersuade the Courtthatjurisdictional

2 Mr. Friend El's complaint contains many additional allegations related to this alleged scheme that are difficult to understand. See Comp!. at 5-10. For example, he alleges (among many otherthings) that "[t]he securities end up being listedthrough the Seventh Circuit (Chicago, IL), then sentto the DTCC, the clearinghouse [that] list[s] the securities for trading," Comp!. at 6; that "[a]ll ofthe lawyers are acting as private debt collectors according to the FDCPA" and that "[t]he BarAssociation exempts them from having to register as such," id.; and that "the 'courts' have an account withthe IMF (International Monetary Fund) under Interpol," and, consequently, that "[t]hejudgesinvolved and the US Attorneys involved do not have an accessible oath ofoffice, because

...the oath ofoffice is between them and the IMF." Id. at 7.

2

### Case 1:17-cv-02029-EDK Document 9 Filed 04/23/18 Page 3 of 4

requirements have been met. Bernard v. United States, 59 Fed. CL 497, 499 (2004), affd, 98 Fed. App'x 860 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Court ofFederal Claims hasjurisdictionunder the TuckerActto hear "any claim against the United States founded eitheruponthe Constitution, or any Act ofCongress or any regulation ofan executive department, orupon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated orunliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort." 28 U.S.C. § 149l(a)(l) (2012). The TuckerAct waives the sovereign immunity ofthe United States to allow a suit for money damages, United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983), but it does not confer any substantive rights. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). Therefore, a plaintiffseeking to invoke the court's Tucker Actjurisdictionmust identify an independent source ofa substantive right to money damages from the United States arising out ofa contract, statute, regulation or constitutional provision. Jan's Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Applying these standards, the Court concludes that it lacksjurisdiction over Mr. Friend El's complaint. First, under principles offederalism, "among the federal courts, only the United States Supreme Courtmay review thejudgments ofstate courts." Jiron v. United States, 118 Fed. CL 190, 200 (citing, inter alia, Johnson v. Way Cool Mfg., L.L.C., 20 F. App'x 895, 897 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (per curiam)). The Courtthus cannot entertainMr. Friend El's attempts to collaterally attack his state court conviction as "fraud" or order any relief related to that conviction. Further, Court cannot assertjurisdiction over claims against any defendant otherthan the United States. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) ("[I]fthe relief sought is against others thanthe United States the suit as to themmust be ignored as beyond thejurisdictionofthe court.") Thus, to the extent Mr. Friend El's allegations concernthe actions ofprivate actors orparticular state or federal officials, the court has nojurisdiction over such claims. Finally, Mr. Friend El's demand for money damages does not appear to be rooted in any particular federal statute, regulation, or constitutional provision, let alone one that could fairly be interpreted as money-mandating. Accordingly, the Court lacks any basis upon which to grant Mr. Friend El's request for an award ofmoney damages. See Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 216-17. And it is axiomatic that the Court lacks the powerto grant injunctive reliefexcept where it is incidental to a moneyjudgment. 28 U.S.C. § 149l(a); see also Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Court therefore has nojurisdiction over Mr. 

### Friend El'srequests for non-monetary relief. In short, the Court lacksjurisdiction over all ofMr. Friend El's claims. His complaint musttherefore be DISMISSED withoutprejudice. 3

3 

### As the governmentpoints out, given that Mr. Friend El's claims are essentially frivolous and that he thus has also failed to state a claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A provides an alternative basis for dismissing his complaint. See Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss at 

### 3-4, Docket No. 5.

3

### Case 1:17-cv-02029-EDK Document 9 Filed 04/23/18 Page 4 of 4

CONCLUSION 

### Forthe reasons discussed above, the government's motion to dismiss is GRANTED 

### and Mr. Friend El's complaint is DISMISSED 

### without prejudice. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Each side shall bear its own costs. IT IS SO ORDERED.

# ELA~~AN Judge

4