Court Opinion

ID: 9391162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-01 13:01:08.267814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.837394
License: Public Domain

Jn the Gnited States Court of federal Clans
No, 22-924C
(Filed April 28, 2023)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

wok ew Fe ke ee * *e * BK ke kK ke * *

FLORDELIZA A. HAWKINS,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

4% %  £ + £ F HF H

wok ke *e * * * ew F ek * F K eK Kk W

ORDER

This is the fifth case filed in our court by pro se plaintiff Flordeliza A.
Hawkins, seeking relief for the foreclosure upon her home by a private entity, and
her eviction by state authorities. Hey first case was dismissed as not within our
jurisdiction because she failed to allege the formation of any contract with the
federal government, failed to identify any federal participation in a taking of her
property, and failed to identify any other money-mandating constitutional
provision, law or regulation that was purportedly violated by the federal
government. Hawkins vu. United States, No. 18-78L, 2018 WL 3214048, at *5-8
(Fed, Cl. June 29, 2018). When Mrs. Hawkins appealed the matter to the Federal
Circuit, the Circuit affirmed the dismissal, finding our court lacked jurisdiction over
her claim that constitutional rights were violated. Hawkins v. United States, 748 F.
App’x 325, 326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

Nine months after the Federai Circuit upheld dismissal of her first case, Mrs.
Hawkins filed her second complaint---which initially focused on the actions of
private or state and local government parties but, upon amendment, broadened the
hist of alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution and federal law by the federal
government, See Hawkins v. United States, No. 19-1672C, 2021 WL 4480876, at
*1-3 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 30, 2021). That case was dismissed as not within our
jurisdiction, as we cannot entertain claims against parties other than the United
States and Mrs. Hawkins failed to identify any alleged federal action in violation of

 
a money-mandating provision of law or in breach of any contract with the federal
government. fd. at *5-7. Upon appeal, the Federal Circuit once again affirmed the
cismissal. See Hawkins v. United States, No. 2022-1096, 2022 WL 3584676, at *1-2
(Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2022).

While her second case was pending in this court, Mrs. Hawkins filed a third
complaint, reiterating the claims of the second and adding a request to be relieved
from the United States Supreme Court’s decision denying review of a case she had
filed against the bank which foreclosed upon her property and against the state and
local government entities. See Hawkins v. United States, No. 19-1794C, 2021 WL
4494473, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 30, 2021). This was dismissed as outside our
jurisdiction, for the reasons given in her earlier cases and because we cannot review
decisions of the Supreme Court, /d. at *1-2. This decision was not appealed by
Mrs. Hawkins.

The fourth case was filed the same day as the above-captioned case, and
initially focused on a dispute over veterans’ benefits. See Compl., Hawkins v.
United States, No. 22-922C (Fed. Cl. Aug. 16, 2022). After Mrs. Hawkins was
ordered to file a more legible amended complaint, she apparently filed a pleading
seeking review of the Federal Circuit decision affirming the dismissal! of her second
case. See Hawkins v. United States, 162 Fed. Cl. 617, G17—18 (2022). Our court
dismissed her fourth case, as outside our jurisdiction. /d. at 618. This decision was
not appealed.

In this fifth case brought by Mrs. Hawkins, she claims she was the prevailing
party in the two appeals decided by the Federal Circuit, and requests damages and
the return of her South Carolina home. Compl. at 1-3. The government has moved
to dismiss the case, under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United
States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC), as Mrs. Hawkins was the losing party in all
her prior cases, and the question of jurisdiction over her claims has been
conclusively htigated. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss at 5-8. In her response, Mrs. Hawkins
reiterates her misunderstanding of the result of her appeals, and repeats her prior
allegations that the Fourth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments were violated
and that the Department of Housing and Urban Development was somehow
responsible. Pl.’s Resp., ECF No. 12 at 5-8.

The motion to dismiss this case is GRANTED. The Federal Circuit
decisions, in Docket Nos. 2018-2210 and 2022-1096, upheld our court’s dismissal of
Mrs. Hawkins’s claims---what was affirmed was not her claims, but this Court’s
decisions that the claims were not 1n our jurisdiction. See Hawkins, 2022 WL
3584676, at “1-2; Hawkins, 748 F. App’x 326-27. Plaintiff is mistaken as a matter
of law, as our court cannot base relief upon decisions of the Federal Circuit that our
court lacks jurisdiction over a matter. Nor do we possess jurisdiction to review
decisions of the Federal Circuit or, indeed, any other federal court. See Joshua v.

2.

 
United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Karl v. United States, 787 F. App’x
751, 752 (Fed. Cir. 2019). To the extent Mrs. Hawkins is merely repeating her
rejected theories concerning federal government liability, these claims are

foreclosed under res judicata principles, see Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 334 F.3d
1052, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326
n.5 (1979)), as she has articulated no cure of the previously explained jurisdictional
defects, see Lea v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 203, 213 (2016); Lowe v. United
States, 79 Fed. Cl. 218, 229-80 (2007). Moreover, the foreclosure and eviction took
place in 2018, see Pl.’s Resp. at 7, and thus Mrs. Hawkins’s complaint was filed after
the six-year limitations period had expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 2501.

For the reasons stated above, defendant’s motion to dismiss this case for lack

of subject-matter jurisdiction, under RCFC 12(b)(1),is GRANTED. This simply is
not a matter for our court. The Clerk shall close the case.t

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Senior Judge

 

| Plaintiffs application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is
GRANTED, and thus Mrs. Hawkins is relieved of the obligation to pay filing fees.