ANTHONY v. USA, No. 1:2013cv00931 - Document 3 (Fed. Cl. 2013)

Court Description: UNPUBLISHED OPINION and ORDER. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Francis M. Allegra. (dls) Copy to parties.

Download PDF
ORIgINAt lln@)y @nfftD $ltstes @ourt of /r[rrul @lufmg No. l3-931 C This Opinion Will Not Be Published in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Reporter Because Does Not Add Significantly to the Body of Law. It FILED (Filed: November 27,2013) NOv 2 ? 2013 SILVA WAYNE ANTHONY, ,Hr,?88'-u8lo?fi' Plaintiff, THE LNITED STATES, Defendant. OPINION and ORDER On November 22,2013, Silva Wa1,ne Anthony (plaintiff) filed a complaint seeking, inter a/rd, to collect upon an alleged judgment by having this court order the seizure of $ 119,525,127 .'73 from the United States Department of Justice or perhaps the City of New Bedford, Massachusetts (it is not clear from the complaint which). This court is solemnly obliged, on its own accord, to address obvious questions conceming its subject matter jurisdiction. See Mitchellv. Maurer,293 U.S.237,244 (1934). This court recognizes that plaintiffis acting pro se before this court, and thus the court will hold the form of plaintiffs submissions to a less stringent standard than those drafted by an attorney. See Reed v. UnitedStates,23 Cl. Ct.517,521 (1991) (citing Es telle v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97 (1976)). Having reviewed plaintiff s complaint, this court is cefiain that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the claim that plaintiff raises. With very limited exceptions, the jurisdictional statutes goveming the United States Court ofFederal Claims grant authority to the court only to issuejudgments for money against the United States and then, only when they are grounded in a contact, a money-mandating statute, or the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. See United States v. Testan, 424 U.S.392,397-98 (1976);28 U.S.C. $ 1491. Plaintiff makes some references in his complaint to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - but this is not a money-mandating provision, as would support this court's exercise ofjurisdiction. See LeBlanc v. United States,50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Carruthv. UnitedStates,62TF.2d 1068, i081 (Ct. Cl. 1980). At all events, this court lacks the authority to order the execution ofjudgments allegedly rendered by other courts. SeeAliv. United States,2007 WL516179l, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 11,2007);see also Ramirez v. United States,36 Fed. Cl. 467,412 (1996). Accordingly, the Clerk shall dismiss plaintiffs complaint for lack ofjurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED.

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.