Court Opinion

ID: 9383989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 16:01:45.442481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:49.442469
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                           No. 23-314
                                     (Filed: 31 March 2023)
                                    NOT FOR PUBLICATION

***************************************
ALONZO SPENCER OWENS,                 *
                                      *
                  Plaintiff,          *
                                      *
v.                                    *
                                      *
THE UNITED STATES,                    *
                                      *
                  Defendant.          *
                                      *
***************************************

                                              ORDER

HOLTE, Judge.

        On 1 March 2023, pro se plaintiff Alonzo Owens filed a complaint, making various
claims including two alleged takings under the Fifth Amendment by a federal employee for the
amounts of $413,000,000 and $139,500,000. See Compl. at 3, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges a
Clerk of Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit “illegal[ly] closed
[his] 2nd circuit court jurisdiction,” thereby depriving him of “compensable amounts” equivalent
to a taking. Id. at 1. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $33,900,000,000. Id. at 15.

        After careful review of plaintiff’s complaint, the Court suspects it lacks jurisdiction over
plaintiff’s claims. This court’s authority to hear cases is set forth by the Tucker Act, which
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). The Court’s jurisdiction does not extend to reviewing decisions made
by Article III tribunals. See Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United States, 782 F.3d 1345, 1353
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Permitting parties aggrieved by the decisions of Article III tribunals to
challenge the merits of those decisions in the Court of Federal Claims would circumvent the
statutorily defined appellate process and severely undercut the orderly resolution of claims.”);
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 218–19 (explaining Article III “gives the Federal
Judiciary the power, not merely to rule on cases, but to decide them, subject to review only by
superior courts in the Article III hierarchy”).

        Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) provides “[i]f the
court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action.” The Court therefore ORDERS plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE on or before 1 May 2023 as
to why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3). In responding to this
Order, plaintiff must identify which source or sources of money-mandating law he is invoking,
identify how his claims are against the United States, and explain why this court has jurisdiction
over this case. The Court accordingly STAYS the government’s answer pending the Court’s
review of plaintiff’s forthcoming response. The government SHALL FILE its response to
plaintiff’s brief within 30 days of the date plaintiff files his brief.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                     s/ Ryan T. Holte
                                                     RYAN T. HOLTE
                                                     Judge

                                               -2-