WILLRICH v. USA, No. 1:2013cv00410 - Document 15 (Fed. Cl. 2013)

Court Description: UNPUBLISHED OPINION and ORDER granting 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; and directing the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1). No costs. Signed by Judge Charles F. Lettow. (dls) Copy to parties.

Download PDF

WILLRICH v. USA Doc. 15 ORNO!I\IAI. llntbt @nftr! $rtutts @ourt of frlrrs[ @luims Nos. l3-406C, 13-410C, l3-438C, 13-448C, t3-449C, 13-450C, 13-451C, 13-452C, 13-453C (Filed: July 3,2013) (NOT TO BE PUBLISHED) ** ** ** * ** * *** *** *'*:t*t :*++ *+,1 FILED *1,+**** JUL, CANDACE WILLRICH, - 3 2013 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Plaintiff, UNITED STATES, Defendant. + * rr 't 'l * ,1 * :t {. *** {. + ,t {< ,t * ,t ,t ,t **,t,t ***{<{<*,}* OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Judge. Plaintiff, Candace Willrich, has filed nine complaints requesting monetary relief from the government in various amounts ranging as high as $ 100 billion for alleged assaults upon her person and character, in addition to other alleged inflicted injuries. Plaintiffhas requested leave to proceed inJbrma pauperis in each ofthese docketed cases, representing to the court that she is cunently unemployed, and that her cash assets are minimal, totaling significantly less than $ 10,000. BACKGROUND' Ms. Willrich alleges in these nine cases a variety ofassaults upon her person, theft ofher intellectual property, intentional misrepresentations to Ms. Willrich, defamation of her character, and disparagement of the reputation ofher business. See, e.g., Compl., Case No. l3-438C (entitled "Complaint for Attempted Murder on the Moming of June 25, 2013"); Compl., Case No. 13-410C (entitled "Complaint for Attempt to Stroke a Mathematician's Brain"). These injuries have allegedly been inflicted upon Ms. Willrich by multiple persons, including but not limited to President Obama, Attomey General Eric Holder, the United States Secret Service, and 'This statement of the circumstances relating to Ms. Willrich's claim is taken from her submissions and does not include any findinss of fact. Dockets.Justia.com Ms. Malia Obama. Mot. for Order to Seal Ct. Records, Case No. 13-406C at Jfl 10, 16; Compl., Case No. l3-410C, Ex. I at 5 Willrich filed her first case in this court, docketed as No. l3406C. She filed the case docketed as No. l3-410C on June 10, 2013, and another docketed as Case No. l3-438C on June 28, 2013. The remaining six cases were filed in this court on July l, On June 17,2013, Ms. 2013. ANALYSIS A. Applications to Proceed InFonma Pauperis Contemporaneously with filing each complaint, Ms. Willrich submitted a motion for leave to proceed informa pauperls. These applications are appropriately supported, and thus, for good cause shown, Ms. Willrich's applications to proceed informa paupens are GRANTED. B. Jurisdiction The court may address jurisdiction sua.qponte even ifjurisdiction is not challenged by an opposing party. "[A] 'court must satisfy itselfthat it hasjurisdiction to hear and decide a case before proceeding to the merits."' Hardie v. United states,367 F.3d l29g, 1290 (Fed. cir. 2004) (quoting PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chem. Co.,304 F.3d 1235, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing View Eng'g, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc., 115 F .3d 962,963 (Fed. Cir. 1997))). Under the Tucker Act, this court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims founded "upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation ofan executive department, 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. $ 1491(a)(1) (emphasis added). Because Ms. Willrich,s complaints exclusively allege torts and do not draw upon any money-mandating statute, regulation or contract, the court does not possess subject matter jurisdiction over her claims. Accordingly, the court must dismiss Ms. Willrich's claims for lack ofjurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). CONCLUSION The plaintiff s nine docketed cases zue DISMISSED lor lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC l2(b)(1) because each allegation contained in these complaints sounds in tort. The clerk shall enter judgment in accord with this decision. No costs. It is so ORDERED. Charles F. Lettow Judge

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.