Court Opinion

ID: 9366769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 21:01:37.252063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:55.016435
License: Public Domain

Corrected

         In the United States Court of Federal Claims

 REGINA LEWIS,

                     Plaintiff,

 v.                                                        No. 23-77
                                                           (Filed: January 27, 2023)
 THE UNITED STATES,

                    Defendant.

Regina Lewis, Newburgh, NY, pro se.

                                             ORDER

LERNER, Judge.

        Plaintiff, Regina Lewis, appearing pro se, filed a complaint in this Court on January 18,
2023, against the Department of the Interior. See Compl., Dkt No. 1. In her Complaint, she
alleges that Defendant unlawfully refused to acknowledge her status as an indigenous person and
failed to provide her the concomitant privileges. Id. at 4. This Court lacks jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s claims.
I.     Legal Standards

        The Tucker Act itself does not create a cause of action. “[T]he plaintiff must look
beyond the Tucker Act to identify a substantive source of law that creates the right to recovery of
money damages against the United States.” Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521
F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs have the “burden of establishing jurisdiction by a
preponderance of the evidence.” Curry v. United States, 787 Fed. App’x 720, 722 (Fed. Cir.
2019). While courts interpret pro se filings leniently, such plaintiffs must still show jurisdiction.
See id. While pro se plaintiffs are afforded greater latitude, this leniency does not absolve them
from the obligation to establish jurisdiction. See Bernard v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 497, 499
(2004).

II.    Discussion

        Ms. Lewis claims that the Department of the Interior refused to acknowledge her
indigenous status and provide her with “aid and assistance for the past four years.” Compl. at 4.
In part, Ms. Lewis’s claims rely on the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997. Id. This Act is
law in the Republic of the Philippines. As such, this Court has no jurisdiction. Cf. De Archibold
v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (2003) (“The law of Panama, a foreign country, cannot act as
the waiver of sovereign immunity that is required for Tucker Act jurisdiction in this court.”).
The Complaint also cites additional authorities, none of which establish jurisdiction. See Morton
v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1975) (cited by Plaintiff and narrowly addressing hiring preference in
the Bureau of Indian Affairs for indigenous people); see also 25 U.S.C.A. § Ch. 45, Protection of
Indians & Conservation of Res. (cited by Plaintiff and summarizing statutory protections for
Indian Tribes).
        Nothing in the Complaint implicates this Court’s jurisdiction. If subject matter
jurisdiction cannot be established, the Court must dismiss the case. Adair v. United States, 497
F. 3d 1244, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
III.   Conclusion

        For the reasons set forth above, this case is DISMISSED. The Court CERTIFIES,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good
faith because, as alleged, Plaintiff’s claims are outside the jurisdiction of this Court and
incurable. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. The Clerk
of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                     s/ Carolyn N. Lerner
                                                    CAROLYN N. LERNER
                                                    Judge

                                                2