# (}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,

### tothis Court. 

### Id. at2. 

### 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 allegethese breaches stemmed 

### from the

### failure of Hartford Casualty Insurance Group, the insurance company allegedly 

### insuring hisvehicle, 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 thatthe State

### ofOregon is "absconding 

### with, and is 

### restricting" 

### Plaintiff from the use

### ofhis assets. 

### Id. at2. He also raises concems regarding 

### unfair debt 

### collection practices, as

### well as a 

### claimthatthe 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?h1action 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 sclaims. 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) 

### (notingthat an objection 

### tofederal 

### court subject matter

### jurisdiction may be raised 

### by a court on its 

### own 

### initiative atany 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); seealso 

### 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 astrue 

### all undisputed facts in the pleadings and draws 

### all reasonable inferences 

### infavor

### 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 Statesfounded 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.

. . createsthe 

### 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 

### TuckerAct to 

### identi$ asubstantive source 

### of law that createsthe 

### right to recovery 

### ofmoney damages against the 

### United States" 

### (citation omitted)).Here,the Court lacks subject matter

### jurisdiction over 

### Plaintiff sclaims. 

### 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 thefactual allegations aredirected 

### only at state and 

### private actors, the Court lacks

### jurisdiction overthe 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 statecourts are beyond 

### this Court's 

### jurisdiction). 

### CONCLUSION For the reasons set

### forth above, 

### PlaintifPs complaint is 

### DISMISSED in its 

### entirety, without prejudice. The 

### Clerk ofthe Court is directed to 

### enterjudgment accordingly. Each 

### party shall bear its 

### own costs.


### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED. 

# el4^--

ELAINE D. 

### KAPLAN Judge