7018 2290 0000 5183 8969
The Court's jurisdiction is established by the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(l), which 

provides: 

The United States Comi of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render 

judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the 

Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive 

depmiment, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for 

liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort. 

The Supreme Comi has interpreted the Tucker Act to waive sovereign immunity to allow 

jurisdiction to entertain a claim against the Unites States if the Claim is (1) founded on an 

express or implied contract with the United States; (2) seeking a refund of a payment previously 

made to the United States; or (3) based on federal constitutional, statutory, or regulatory law 

mandating compensation for damages sustained, except from a t01i. See United States v. Navajo 

Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 289-90 (2009). "Not every claim invoking the Constitution, a federal 

statute, or a regulation is cognizable under the Tucker Act. The claim must be one for money 

dmnages against the United States." United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206,216 (1983). To 

invoke this Comi's jurisdiction, a plaintiff must rely on a statute or regulation that is moneymandating, which means the source of alleged liability "can fairly be interpreted as mandating 

compensation by the Federal Government." United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392,400 (1976). 

The plaintiff is proceedingpro se, and his pleadings are entitled to receive a more liberal 

construction than the Comi would give to pleadings prepm·ed by counsel. See Haines v. Kerner, 

404 U.S. 519 (1972). Giving a prose litigant's pleadings a liberal construction, however, does 

not divest a pro se plaintiff from the responsibility of having to satisfy the jurisdictional 

requirements limiting this Court's jurisdiction. See Kelly v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep '/ of Labor, 812 

F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Hale v. United States, 143 Fed. Cl. 180, 184 (2019).

The starting point for determining whether this Court has jurisdiction is the plaintiffs 

Complaint, which the Comi will construe liberally. 

The plaintiff provides at the start of the Complaint a summary: "This Claim has two main 

elements - enforcement of criminal charges and punitive monetary dmnages based upon [United 

States Code] Code Violations and supporting and relevant [United States Code] Code Violations 

and the Constitution Violations." (Comp!. at 2). 

The Complaint totals 50 pages and includes 4 7 separate claims. Based on a careful 

review of the Complaint, it appears that the plaintiff, who refers to himself as disabled, has 

consistently filed whistleblower complaints with federal agencies, but the agencies have not 

pursued his allegations. The substance of those allegations is not clear from the Complaint, but, 

based on some of the claims in the Complaint, may involve allegations of discrimination against 

the disabled or cost-overruns on government contracts. 

The 47 claims can be broadly grouped among the following categories: 1) the failure of 

federal agencies to act on the plaintiffs whistleblower complaints; 2) injuries to the plaintiff 

from that general failure to act; 3) violations of federal criminal and tort laws due to those 

failures; 4) violations of the plaintiffs civil and constitutional rights; 5) Freedom oflnformation 

2