(}RH$INAI"

l|in tW @nitr! 9rtatts @ourt of fr[trsl @lsimg

Pro Se

LEWIS R. MORGAN,

Plaintiff,

THE LINITED STATES OF AMERICA,

FILED

ocT 2 4 2016

U.S. COURT OF

FEDERAL CLAIMS

No. 16-937C

(Iiled: October 24, 2016)

Ke)'words: Subject Matter Jurisdiction;

Pro Se Plaintiffs.

Defendant.

Lewis R. Morgan, La Pine, OR, Plaintiff, pro 59.

Barbara E. Thomas, Trial Attomey, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Depaxtment

of Justice, Washington, DC, with whom werc Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Assistant Director, Robert

E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attomey

General, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

KAPLAN, Judge.

Lewis R. Morgan, the pro se plaintiff in this case, commenced this action by filing a

document entitled "Motion (Rule 7) Requested Transfer from 15CV280i6, to Federal Circuit

Court ' on August2,2016, which the Court treated as a complaint. See Doc. No. 1 . In it, Plaintiff

seemingly sought transfer ofa case from the Circuit Court ofDeschutes County, Oregon, to this

Court. Id. at 2. Plaintiff asserted an "action in equity" as well as "several" breaches ofcontracts

which prevent him from using his truck and trailer. Id. at 3. He appeared to allege these breaches

stemmed from the failure of Hartford Casualty Insurance Group, the insurance company

allegedly insuring his vehicle, to pay replacement costs after Plaintiff totaled his vehicle, as well

as from unspecified contracts with Linn County Federal Credit Union. See id. at 3 5. The

document did not specify any reliefsought, other than transfer to this Court. See id. at 5-6.

On August 31,2016, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Doc. No. 4. In it, Plaintiff

seeks declaratory judgment and "relief persuant [sic] to 28 USC section 2201 & 2202" from the

"State of Oregon (LINN CO FCU) in the United States of America." Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges

that the State ofOregon is "absconding with, and is restricting" Plaintiff from the use ofhis

assets. Id. at 2. He also raises concems regarding unfair debt collection practices, as well as a

claim that the State ofOregon assaulted him, his family, and his property, and took his son

hostage for a $30,000 ransom. !! at 3-4. Plaintiffls amended complaint also asserts causes of

?Drr Dq?o oDDa 506q 3?h1
action against the State ofOregon, Linn County Federal Credit Union, and Hartford Casualty

Insurance Group, regarding infringement of unspecified copyrights, trademarks, trade dress, and

patents, for which he seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. See id. at 6-9.

For the reasons discussed below, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff s claims.

Therefore, the amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

DISCUSSION

The Court may raise subj ect matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time. Rick's Mushroom

Serv.. Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (intemal citation omitted); see

also Arbaueh v. Y&H Com., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006) (noting that an objection to federal court

subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by a court on its own initiative at any stage in the

litigation). "lf the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court

must dismiss the action." RCFC 12(h)(3); see also Arbaueh, 546 U.S. at 50A7,514 (stating

that "courts . . . have an independent obligation to determine whether subject matter exists, even

in the absence ofa challenge from any party").

Generally, in determining subject matter jurisdiction, the court accepts as true all

undisputed facts in the pleadings and draws all reasonable inferences in favor ofthe plaintiff. See

Trusted Inteeration. Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The courr may

"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 that are filed by

oro se plaintiffs, like this one, are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted

by lawyers." Haines v. Kemer, 404 U.S. 5I9, 520 (1972). Nonetheless, even p19_gg plaintiffs

must persuade the Court that jurisdictional requirements have been met. Bemard v. Unitec

States, 59 Fed,. Cl. 497 , 499 (2004), aff d, 98 F. App'x 860 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Zulueta v. United

States, 553 F. App'x 983, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("the leniency afforded to a p1q_99 litigant with

respect to mere formalities does not relieve the burden to meet jurisdictional requirements"

(intemal quotation and citation omitted)). The plaintiffbears the burden of establishing subject

matter jurisdiction by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Brandt v. United States, 710 F.3d 1369,

1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv.,846F.2d746,748

(Fed. Cir. 1988).

The Tucker Act grants the United States Court ofFederal Claims the power "to render

judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any

Act ofCongress or any regulation ofan 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). It serves as a waiver of sovereign immunity and a jurisdictional

grant, but it does not create a substantive cause ofaction. Jan's Helicooter Serv.. Inc. v. Fed.

Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299,1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A plaintiff, therefore, must establish

that "a separate source of substantive law. . . creates the right to money damages." ld. (quoting

Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d, 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc in relevant part)); Rick's

Mushroom Serv.. Inc., 521 F.3d at 1343 (stating "plaintiff must look beyond the Tucker Act to

identi$ a substantive source of law that creates the right to recovery ofmoney damages against

the United States" (citation omitted)).
Here, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff s claims. Although

Plaintiffs original and amended complaints list the United States as defendant, his allegations

relate solely to actions allegedly taken by the State of Oregon and private companies. But the

United States is the only proper defendant before the Court ofFederal Claims. Lawton v. United

States, 621 Fed. App'x 671,672 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (citing United States v. Sherwood,

312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941)). Because the factual allegations are directed only at state and private

actors, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims asserted in the complaint. See Lawton, 621

Fed. AFp'x at 672; see also Vlahakis v. United States,2l5 Ct. Cl. 1018, 1018 (1978) (observing

that assertions against state actors and state courts are beyond this Court's jurisdiction).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, PlaintifPs complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety,

without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enterjudgment accordingly. Each party

shall bear its own costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

el4^--

ELAINE D. KAPLAN

Judge