SHARPE v. USA, No. 1:2017cv00217 - Document 10 (Fed. Cl. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Granting 6 Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby. (ew) Copy to parties. Tracking #7016 3010 0000 4308 2801.

Download PDF

SHARPE v. USA Doc. 10 lfn tbe Wnitel:Y !urt o eral QClaitns No. 17-217C Filed June 1, 2017 NOT FOR PUBLICATION STEPHEN SHARPE, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FILED - 1 2017 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Pro Se; RCFC 12(b)(l ), Subject-Matter Jurisdiction; Claims Against a Private Party. Stephen Sharpe, Lyons, GA, plaintiff prose. Sean A. Siekkinen, Trial Attorney, Deborah A. Bynum, Assistant Director, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Depaiiment of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRIGGSBY, Judge I. INTRODUCTION Pro se plaintiff, Stephen Sharpe, brought this action seeking monetary damages and other relief from several private entities and individuals, and the Superior Comi of Georgia. The government has moved to dismiss this matter for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(l) and 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). For the reasons set fo1ih below, the Comi GRANTS the government's motion to dismiss. Dockets.Justia.com II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 A. Factual Background Plaintiff prose, Stephen Sharpe, resides in Lyons, Georgia. Comp!. at 2. Plaintiff commenced this action on February 13, 2017. See generally Comp!. Plaintiffs complaint is difficult to follow. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges, among other things, that: THIS ATTORNEY MASSIVE MCINTYRE USED THE U,S. SUPERIOR COURTHOUSE TO COMMITTEE FRAUD. MASSIVE MCINTRYE HAD A FRAUDULENT CONTRACT A (BALLOON NOTE CONTRACT). The clerk office was holding that contract, at the courthouse. He copied my wife an I signature to that contract. If I would have taken my titiles an deeds to the clerks office, they would have taken our home. That Balloon Note contract went from Key Bank, Seiect Portifolio Inc. Quantum Servicing Corp, Residential credit solutions Inc. Ditech and SN Servicing Corporation. Eighteen yaers [sic] Sept.2015 Massive Mcintrye put another contract in the clerk's Office put a lien on my property stating that the loan was paid in full. I filed a complaint against these companies, with the Consumer Financial Protecting Bureau to show prove of the Lien Holder are Note Holder. Not one company could. Key Bank couldn't tell me how money did I borrow. It was a Equity Line of credit for ten-thousand dollar's. The U.S. Superior is part of the Government, These companies are Regulated by the Federal Government. Id. at 2. Plaintiff seeks to recover $63,733.96 from several of the above-mentioned companies, private individuals and state government entities and he also seeks to "have the contract r[e]moved" from the Superior Court of Georgia's comihouse. Id. at 3, Ex. 2. On February 28, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice under seal with the Comi that contains additional information about his claim. See generally Pl. Notice. In the notice, plaintiff alleges that: Malcom Bryant Attorney/Judge use the U.S. Superior Courthouse to committee fraud [sic]. As a judge Malcom Bryant get paid by the government when he set on the bench. This contract from First Family Financial Service is a fraudulent contract. My property that's on 188 Pecan Place is filed under Tapley St. I have paid double taxes on 18 8 Pecan Place. Both wmTanty deed have never been filed with the comihouse, Malcom Bryant told the clerk to hold this contract at the 1 The facts recited in this Memorandum Opinion and Order are taken from plaintiff's complaint ("Comp!.") and the exhibits attached thereto ("Comp!. at Exs. 1-3") and plaintiffs notice ("Pl. Notice"). 2 courthouse. The land that I brought was only for $8,000.00 Dallor's [sic]. The contract is fraud against the court. Id. In the notice, plaintiff also seeks to recover $17,848.00 that he alleges that he overpaid "on a fraud contract" and "to have that contract removed from the courthouse." Id. Plaintiff also has attached several documents to the complaint which appear to pertain to a residential loan that plaintiff received for property located in Toombs County, Georgia, including a balloon note issued by Key Bank USA, National Association ("Key Bank") and a security deed, signed by plaintiff and his spouse. Comp!. at Ex. 1. B. Procedural Background On February 13, 2017, plaintiff filed the complaint in this matter. See generally Comp!.; Comp!. at Exs. 1-3. On February 28, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice under seal by leave of the Court. See generally Pl. Notice. On April 13, 2017, the government filed a motion to dismiss this matter for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(l) and 12(b)(6). See generally Def. Mot. On May 8, 2017, plaintiff filed a response and opposition to the government's motion to dismiss. See generally Pl. Resp. On May 10, 2017, the government filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. See generally Def. Reply. The government's motion to dismiss having been fully briefed, the Court resolves the pending motion. III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW A. Pro Se Litigants Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter prose. The Court recognizes that parties proceeding prose are granted greater leeway than litigants represented by counsel. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (holding that prose complaints are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"). Nonetheless, "[w]hile a court should be receptive to prose plaintiffs and assist them, justice is ill-served when a jurist crosses the line from finder of fact to advocate." Demes v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 365, 369 (2002). And so, while the Court 3 may excuse ambiguities in plaintiffs complaint, the Court does not excuse the complaint's failures. See Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In addition, this Court has long recognized that "the leniency afforded to a prose litigant with respect to mere formalities does not relieve the burden to meet jurisdictional requirements." Minehan v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 249, 253 (2007). For this reason, a prose plaintiff-like any other plaintiff-must establish the Comt's jurisdiction to consider his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Riles v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 163, 165 (2010). B. RCFC 12(b)(l) When deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, this Comt must assume that all undisputed facts alleged in the complaint are true and must draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); United Pac. Ins. Co. v. United States, 464 F.3d 1325, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2006); RCFC 12(b)(l). Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction, and must do so by a preponderance of the evidence. Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). And so, should the Court determine that "it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter, it must dismiss the claim." Matthews v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 274, 278 (2006). In this regard, the United States Comt of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction and "possess[ es] only that power authorized by Constitution and statute." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. ofAm., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Specifically, the Tucker Act grants the Court jurisdiction over: [A]ny claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive depaitment, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort. 28 U.S.C. § 149l(a)(l) (2011). The Tucker Act, however, is "a jurisdictional statute; it does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages .... [T]he Act merely confers jurisdiction upon [the United States Court of Federal Claims] whenever the substantive right exists." United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). And so, to come within the jurisdictional reach and waiver of the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a separate source of substantive law that creates the right to money damages. Fisher v. United States, 402 4 FJd 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005). If the Court finds that the source oflaw alleged is not moneymandating, the Court must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 1173; RCFC 12(b)(! ). C. RCFC 12(b)(6) Lastly, when deciding a motion to dismiss based upon failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(6), this Court must assume that all undisputed facts alleged in the complaint are trne and draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94; see also RCFC 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain facts sufficient to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). And so, when the complaint fails to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," the Court must dismiss the complaint. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). On the other hand, "[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity" and determine whether it is plausible, based upon these facts, to find against defendant. Id. at 679. IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. The Court Does Not Possess Jurisdiction To Consider Plaintiff's Claims The government has moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint upon two grounds. See generally Def. Mot. First, the government argues that the Court does not possess subject-matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs claims, because plaintiff fails to identify any source of law to establish the Court's jurisdiction and plaintiffs claims are not brought against the United States. Id. at 5-6; 28 U.S.C. § 149l(a)(l). Alternatively, the government argues that the Court should dismiss plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, because plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim for relief. Def. Mot. at 6. For the reasons discussed below, the Court agrees that it does not possess subject-matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs claims against private and state government entities, and private individuals. And so, the Court GRANTS the government's motion to dismiss and dismisses the complaint. A plain reading of the complaint shows that plaintiffs claims are jurisdictionally precluded, because this Court may not consider claims against private individuals and entities, or the Superior Court of Georgia. It is well-established that the United States is the only 5 appropriate defendant in a case brought in the United States Court of Federal Claims. RCFC lO(a); see also United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) ("[The Court of Federal Claims'] jurisdiction is confined to the rendition of money judgments in suits brought for that relief against the United States, ... and if the relief sought is against others than the United States, the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court.... "). And so, the jurisdiction of this Court extends only to claims against the United States and "a controversy between private parties could not be entertained." Nat 'l City Bank v. United States, 14 3 Ct. Cl. 154, 164 (1958); see also Stephenson v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 186, 190 (2003) ("[T]he only proper defendant ... before [the United States Court of Federal Claims] is the United States, not its officers, nor any other individual.") (emphasis existing). The Court is also without jurisdiction to consider claims against states or state government entities. Sherwood, 312 U.S. at 588 (For suits filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims and its predecessor, "if the relief sought is against others than the United States the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court."). And so, "the only proper defendant for any matter before this Court is the United States, not its officers, nor any other individual." Stephenson, 58 Fed. Cl. at 190 (emphasis existing); see also Sherwood, 312 U.S. at 588. In the complaint, plaintiff seeks to recover monetary damages from several private entities and individuals, including two attorneys, Key Bank and First Family Financial Services. Comp!. at 2-3, Ex. 2; see also Pl. Resp.; Pl. Notice at 1-2. In addition, plaintiff appears to seek injunctive relief from the Superior Comt of Georgia regarding the removal of his balloon note from that court's land records. See generally Comp!. This Court does not possess jurisdiction to entertain such claims. See Souders v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth., 497 F.3d 1303, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Reidv. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 243, 248 (2010) ("The Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs claims naming states, localities, state government agencies, local government agencies and private individuals and entities as defendants."); Woodson v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 640, 649 (2009) (citing Shaihoub v. United States, 75 Fed. 6 Cl. 584, 585 (2007)). And so, the Comt must dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. RCFC l 2(b)(1). 2 V. CONCLUSION In sum, plaintiff brings no claims against the United States, or any of its agencies, in this action. Rather, plaintiff asse1ts claims against private individuals and companies and the Superior Court of Georgia. Because the Comt does not possess subject-matter jurisdiction to consider such claims, the Court must dismiss the complaint. And so, for the foregoing reasons, the Comt GRANTS the government's motion to dismiss. The Clerk is directed to ENTER judgment in favor of the government DISMISSING the complaint. No costs. IT IS SO ORDERED. Because the Cou1t concludes that it does not possess subject-matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs claims, the Couit does not reach the government's arguments with respect to RCFC 12(b)(6). 2 7

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.