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

FILED 

3Jn tbe Wniteb ~tate.s <!Court of jfeberal <!Claim-S\PR 2 3 201s 

No. 17-2029 (Pro Se) 

(Filed: April 23, 2018 I Not For Publication) 

U.S. COURT OF 

FEDERAL CLAIMS 

JONATHON LARON FRlEND EL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERlCA, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-) 

Jonathon Laron Friend El, Marion, NC, pro se. 

Keywords: Pro Se Plaintiff; Motion to 

Dismiss; Subject Matter Jurisdiction. 

John S. Groat, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC, with whom were Deborah A. Bynum, Assistant 

Director, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, for Defendant. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

KAPLAN, Judge. 

Plaintiff Jonathon Laron Friend El filed a complaint in this Court on December 22, 

2017. The government has moved to dismiss Mr. Friend El's complaint. For the reasons 

discussed below, the government's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Accordingly, Mr. 

Friend El's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

BACKGROUND1 

Mr. Friend El is currently incarcerated in a state prison in North Carolina. See Friend 

v. Schatzman, No. 1:15CV231, 2015 WL 1346245, at *1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 2015). The 

allegations in his complaint posit the existence of a wide-ranging conspiracy to somehow 

commercialize the criminal justice system for the financial benefit of (among others) judges 

and prosecutors. See Comp!. at 2-10, Docket No. 1. In connection with these claims, Mr. 

Friend El alleges that he has been "unjustly convicted and imprisoned" because the "courts" 

1 The facts set forth in this section are based on the allegations in Mr. Friend El's complaint, 

which the Court assumes are true for purposes of deciding the government's motion to 

dismiss, as well as on jurisdictional facts drawn from the documents attached to 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 imposed his sentence "are not 'Courts' as per the Constitution of the 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 of the state 

court "sells the judgments to the Federal Courts," after which "[t]he judgments are ... taken 

to the federal Discount window," 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 ... of North Carolina, to securitize any documents in any case against me." Id. at 9. 

Further, he contends, "the [a ]ct of engaging in commercial transactions on behalf of 

another ... without their knowledge, consent and authorization is fraud." Id. at 10 (emphasis 

omitted). 

Based on these 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 sent to [him] immediately" and that his 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 motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court 

accepts as true all undisputed facts in the pleadings and draws all reasonable inferences in 

favor of the plaintiff. Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. 

Cir. 2011).The court may, however, "inquire into jurisdictional facts" to determine whether it 

has jurisdiction. Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d 991, 993 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is well 

established that 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 must persuade the Court that jurisdictional 

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 other things) that "[t]he securities end up being listed through the Seventh Circuit 

(Chicago, IL), then sent to the DTCC, the clearinghouse [that] list[s] the securities for 

trading," Comp!. at 6; that "[a]ll of the lawyers are acting as private debt collectors according 

to the FDCPA" and that "[t]he Bar Association exempts them from having to register as 

such," id.; and that "the 'courts' have an account with the IMF (International Monetary Fund) 

under Interpol," and, consequently, that "[t]he judges involved and the US Attorneys 

involved do not have an accessible oath of office, because ... the oath of office 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 of Federal Claims has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to hear "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. § 149l(a)(l) (2012). The Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity of the 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 plaintiff seeking to invoke the court's Tucker Act jurisdiction must 

identify an independent source of a substantive right to money damages from the United 

States arising out of a 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 lacks jurisdiction over Mr. 

Friend El's complaint. First, under principles of federalism, "among the federal courts, only 

the United States Supreme Court may review the judgments of state 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 Court thus cannot entertain Mr. Friend 

El's attempts to collaterally attack his state court conviction as "fraud" or order any relief 

related to that conviction. 

Further, Court cannot assert jurisdiction over claims against any defendant other than 

the United States. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) ("[I]fthe relief 

sought is against others than the United States the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond 

the jurisdiction of the court.") Thus, to the extent Mr. Friend El's allegations concern the 

actions of private actors or particular state or federal officials, the court has no jurisdiction 

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 of money damages. See Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 

216-17. And it is axiomatic that the Court lacks the power to grant injunctive relief except 

where it is incidental to a money judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 149l(a); see also Todd v. United 

States, 386 F.3d 1091, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Court therefore has no jurisdiction over 

Mr. Friend El's requests for non-monetary relief. 

In short, the Court lacks jurisdiction over all of Mr. Friend El's claims. His complaint 

must therefore be DISMISSED without prejudice.3 

3 As the government points 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 

For the 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. 

Judge 

ELA~~AN 

4