1



# In the U nited States Court of Federal Claims

No. 22

- 40

Filed: April 7, 2022

CARLOS A. ALFORD

,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER

P laintiff Carlos A. Alford

, proceeding pro se , filed a complaint with this Court alleging

, inter alia

, that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( “ NASA ” ) defamed his

character by “ [ i ] mputing that [plaintiff] is unable or lacks the integrity to perform [ his] employment duties” and that he “lack[ed] ability” for the position

. Complaint, Exhibit 1 ( Amended Complaint ) at 3 , ECF No. 1 [hereinafter Am. Compl.].

On February 1, 2022 , the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause as to wh y th is Court has jurisdiction over his claim s

. S ee Show Cause Order, ECF No. 9

. On March 2, 2022, p laintiff responded to the Court’s Order

. S ee Plaintiff’s Response to Show Cause Order , ECF No. 1 0
[ hereinafter Pl.’s Resp. ]

. After careful review of plaintiff’s Complaint and R esponse to the

Court’s Show Cause Order , the Court determines it does not have jurisdiction and therefore must

dismiss the C omplaint. See R. Ct. Fed. Cl. 12(h)(3).

Plaintiff brings this claim under t he Tu cker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491. Pl.’s Resp . at 1

. The

Tuck er Act grants the Court of Federal Claims subject

- matter jurisdiction over claims brought against the United States that are grounded on a money

- mandating source of law and do not

sound in tort. 28 U .S.C. § 1491(a)(1). I f the Court “ determines at any time that it lacks subject

matter jurisdiction

, ” it must dismiss the action. R. Ct. Fed. Cl. 12(h)(3)

.

Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that this C ourt has jurisdiction over his claims

. See Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exchange Serv. , 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). And

while p ro se plaintiffs are given “ leeway on procedural matters, such as pleading requirements

, ” McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp. , 501 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007 ) , this leniency does not lessen the plaintiff’s jurisdictional burden

. See Ibrahim v. United States , 799 Fed. Appx. 865, 867 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ( citing Kelley v. Sec ’y , United States Dep't of Labor , 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ). Demonstrating this Court’s jurisdiction is generally a low bar. See, e.g., Columbus Reg’l Hosp. v. United States , 990 F.3d 1330, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“As a general rule, if a pl aintiff alleges breach of a contract with the government, the allegation itself confers2

power on the Claims Court to decide whether the claim has merit.”). Claims that are “factually frivolous,” however, fall outside of this Court’s jurisdiction. See, e. g., Spencer v. United States

, 98 Fed. Cl. 349, 356 (2011). These are claims supported by facts that are “ clearly baseless,” or “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Id. Determining whether a claim is factually frivolous is with in this Court’s discretion. See id

. (citing Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)).

Upon sua sponte review, the Court finds that plaintiff fails to plead a non

- frivolous claim

for relief. See Spencer , 98 Fed. Cl. at 356

. Plaintiff’s allegations , i ncluding alleged false

statements from NASA’s hiring panel regarding plaintiff’s “critical competencies” “designed so that [plaintiff] could be passed over and not hired for the job” and that he “ was lied against so that defendant could give job to [sic] friend

, ” fall into the category of being “clearly baseless.”

Id

. ; Complaint at 1 , ECF No. 1; Am. Compl . a t 4

– 5

. Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims and must dismiss the Complaint.

Accordingly

, plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED

, sua sponte

, pursuant to Rule

12 (h)(3) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims . The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to take the necessary steps to dismiss this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s / 

# Loren A. Smith

Loren A. Smith

, Senior Judge