# ORI L 3Jn tbe Wniteb**~tates** 

# qcourt ofjf 

# eberal <!Claims No. 15-1584C (Filed June 20, 2016) NOT FOR PUBLICATION

* ** * ****** * ** * ***** * **** 

### * * JENNIFER ROSE CLARKE, 

### * * Plaintiff, * v. * * 

### THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * 

### * ************************



### ORDER 

# FILED JUN 202016 U.S

. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

On December 29, 2015, plaintiffJennifer Rose Clarke, representing herself, filed a complaintin this court, naming as defendants Lanier County Department of Family and Children Services, CPS Supervisor Rhonda Fletcher, and Social Services Case Managers Dymond Brown and Lasheena Littleton. Compl. 

### iii! 2-5. The complaint concerns a custody dispute over Ms. Clarke's two daughters. 

### Id. 

### iii! 6-24. Plaintiffalleges deprivation ofcivil liberties and due process, as well as various violations ofthe FourthAmendment. 

### Id. 

### iii! 14, 16, 20, 24. Plaintiff requests the following relief: (1) a cease and desist order; (2) all documents with plaintiff's name and her children's names, pictures, recordings, and interviews; and (3) $5,000,000 in emotional damages for plaintiffand her children

. 

### Id. 

### iii! 25-29. In response, defendant filed a motion to dismiss this case for lack ofsubjectmatterjurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(l) ofthe Rules ofthe Court ofFederal Claims (RCFC). Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss. at 1. Defendantraises three independent grounds for dismissal: first, plaintiff's failure to assert any allegation or claim against the United States; second, plaintiff's failure to identify a money-mandatingprovision or other basis forjurisdiction; and finally, thatplaintiffs claims and requests for relief sound entirely in tort. 

### Id. at 4. Plaintifffailed to file a response to the government's motion.
Under RCFC 12(b)(l), this court must dismiss claims that do not fall within its subject-matterjurisdiction. When considering a motion to dismiss a case for lackofsubject-matterjurisdiction, courts will accept as true all factual allegations the non-movant made and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to thatparty. 

### See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); 

### Pixton v. B & 

### B Plastics, Inc., 291 F.3d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (requiringthat on a motion to dismiss for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdictionthis court views "the alleged facts in the complaint as true, and ifthe facts reveal any reasonable basis upon which the non-movant may prevail, dismissalis inappropriate"); 

### CBYDesign Builders v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 303, 325 (2012). Although a pro se plaintiff's filings are to be liberally construed, 

### see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), this lenient standard cannot save claims which are outside this court'sjurisdictionfrom being dismissed. 

### See, e.g., Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The partyinvoking a court'sjurisdictionhere, Ms. Clarke-bears the burden ofestablishingit and must ultimately do so by a preponderance ofthe evidence. 

### See McNutt v. Gen. MotorsAcceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); 

### Reynolds v. Army & 

### AirForce Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 

### Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d 991, 993 (Fed. Cir. 1991).Plaintiffseems to be confused about thejurisdiction ofour court. We have the power to hear only cases brought against the 

### United States government, primarily money claims based on grounds other than torts. 

### See 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1491; RCFC lO(a); 

### see also Stephenson v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 186, 190 (2003). Plaintiff's complaint contains no factual allegations concerning the United States government, much less anything related to our subject-matterjurisdiction (such as a federal contract or a money-mandating statute). 

### See Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding that the Due Process Clauses ofboth Fifth and the FourteenthAmendments are not money-mandating); 

### Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623-24 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that the FourthAmendment is not money-mandating). Moreover, Ms. Clarke seeks monetary and injunctive reliefbased on tort, which is not within ourpower to grant because the TuckerAct expressly limits ourjurisdictionto "cases not sounding intort." 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(l); 

### see also Sellers v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. 62, 66 (2013). For the foregoing reasons, the Court 

### GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss this case for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdictionpursuant to RCFC 12(b)(l). The Clerk shall close the case.



### IT IS SO ORDERED.

- 2

.