Court Opinion

ID: 4352821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-12-20 17:01:35.403823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:44:32.731310
License: Public Domain

3Jn tbe Wniteb $)tates 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980)
(citations omitted). Nevertheless, "although plaintiff is accorded leniency in
presenting his case, his prose status does not render him immune from the
requirement that he plead facts upon which a valid claim can rest." Paalan v.
United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 15, 16 (2003); see Hughes, 449 U.S. at 10.

A. Legal Standard

       Under RCFC 12(h)(3), a claim brought before this court must be dismissed if
the court determines it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. When considering
whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, a court will normally accept as true all
factual allegations made by the pleader and draw all reasonable inferences in the
light most favorable to that party. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S . 232, 236 (1974) ;
Pixton v. B&B Plastics, Inc., 291 F.3d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that on a
motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction the court views "the alleged
facts in the complaint as true, and if the facts reveal any reasonable basis upon
which the non-movant may prevail, dismissal is inappropriate"). A court must first

                                        - 2 -
determine that it has jurisdiction before considering the merits of the case. See
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 93-95 (1998).

       The Tucker Act, 28 U .S.C. § 1491, does not create substantive rights. Thus,
in order for a plaintiff's claims to be within our jurisdiction, plaintiff must identify a
separate source of law that creates a right to money damages. Jan 's Helicopter
Serv., Inc. v. FAA, 525 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Fisher v. United
States , 402 F .3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane in relevant part)).

B. Analysis

       Though an uncompensated taking of private property by the federal
government --- which presumably could include an internet domain name --- can
come within our subject-matter jurisdiction, plaintiff has failed to allege such a
claim. On the most favorable reading, plaintiff claims that her property has been
taken, by an unknown party, and the government has not assisted her in recovering
it. Plaintiff points to no authority, and the Court is aware of none, that would
obligate the government to assist her --- let alone one which renders the government
liable for money damages if it failed to do so. Cf. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S.
392, 398 (1976) (explaining requirement of money-mandating source). She does not
allege, plausibly or otherwise, any government involvement in the taking of her
property. Cf. Preseault v. ICC, 494 U.S. 1, 8-13 (explaining Tucker Act jurisdiction
over federal actions alleged to have resulted in an uncompensated taking).
Accordingly, the Court has no choice but to conclude that the complaint fails to
present a claim within its subject-matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the motion to
dismiss this case must be granted.t

                                  III. CONCLUSION

    For the reason stated above, defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is
GRANTED. The Clerk shall close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

t The application for in forma pauperis status is GRANTED.
                                          - 3 -