Court Opinion

ID: 4441128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-09-24 20:02:03.495363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:36:28.488121
License: Public Domain

3Jn tbr Wnitrb ~tatrs 402 F.3d
1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane in relevant part) (citing United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S.
206, 216 (1983); United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976)). If a plaintiff fails to do so,
this court "should [dismiss] for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." Jan's Helicopter Serv., Inc.
v. Federal Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Greenlee Cty. v.
United States, 487 F.3d 871,876 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).

        Mr. Noble, as plaintiff, must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
See Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing
Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). 1 "Subject
matter jurisdiction is an inquiry that this comt must raise sua sponte." Metabolite Labs., Inc. v.
Laboratory Corp. ofAm. Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "If a court lacks
jurisdiction to decide the merits of a case, dismissal is required as a matter of law." Gray v.
United States, 69 Fed. CL 95, 98 (2005) (citing Ex parte Mccardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514
(1868); Thoen v. United States, 765 F.2d 1110, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); see also RCFC 12(h)(3)

        1
          A court may "grant the prose litigant leeway on procedural matters, such as pleading
requirements." McZea/ v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing
Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) ("An unrepresented litigant should not be punished for his
failure to recognize subtle factual or legal deficiencies in his claims.")). But this leniency cannot
extend to lessening jurisdictional requirements. See Kelley v. Secretary, United States Dep 't of
Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ("[A] court may not ... take a liberal view of ...
jurisdictional requirement[s] and set a different rule for prose litigants only.").

                                                  2
("If the court dete1mines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must
dismiss the action.").

                                            ANALYSIS

        As an initial matter, Mr. Noble fails to provide a "short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court's jurisdiction." Ruther v. United States, No. 18-l l l0C, 2018 WL 5095451,
at *3 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 17, 2018) (citing RCFC 8(a)), aff'd, No. 2019-1230 (Fed. Cir. May I, 2019)
(per curiam). He does not cite or identify any federal statutes or regulations, or money-
mandating constitutional provisions, that would provide the court with jurisdiction, and his
complaint is unavailing on this basis alone.

        More importantly, this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Noble's complaint
because this court can only hear claims against the United States. See Anderson v. United States,
117 Fed. Cl. 330, 331 (2014) (finding the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction "over any
claims alleged against states, localities, state and local govermnent entities, or state and local
government officials and employees"). Likewise, this court lacks jurisdiction over claims
"sounding in tort." 28 U.S.C. § 149l(a)(l). Mr. Noble's complaint alleges a claim against
SEPTA, which is not a federal entity. To the extent that the complaint mentions the United
States, it does so only in the context of what are apparently allegations of a breach of fiduciary
duty. But "[b ]reach of fiduciary duty is generally classified as a tort" and therefore this court
lacks jurisdiction over such claims. Newby v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 283, 294 (2003)
(citations omitted). As a result, this comi cannot exercise jurisdiction over any of Mr. Noble's
claims and must dismiss his complaint. 2

                                          CONCLUSION

        For the reasons stated, Mr. Noble's complaint shall be DISMISSED without prejudice for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

        No costs.

        It is so ORDERED.

                                                       Charles F. Lettow
                                                       Senior Judge

        2The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey also dismissed an action
brought by Mr. Noble. See Noble v. Thalheimer, No. 12-CV-04198 (KM), 2013 WL 396161
(D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2013). The court ruled that Mr. Noble's amended complaint "cannot be
construed as supplying facts in support of a claim that would entitle the plaintiff to relief." Id.,
2013 WL 396161, at *3.

                                                  3