UPSHUR et al v. USA, No. 1:2016cv00537 - Document 8 (Fed. Cl. 2016)
Court Description: UNREPORTED OPINION and ORDER granting 5 Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) and (6). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Elaine D. Kaplan. (dls) Copy to parties. (USPS Tracking No. 9114 9014 9645 0594 5521 15)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UPSHUR et al v. USA Doc. 8 nESrr.',F Ft. i',,i'.n, o " *,!i'd*h litttltt @nftr! Stutedr@ourt of frUuul @lufmr'LED No. 16-537C (Filed: Juty 29,2016 | Not For Publication) JUL 2I 20t6 U.S. COURTOF FEDERAL CLAIMS ALBERT W. UPSHUR, YOLANDA D. THOMPSON, and BENNIE SHEPPARD, Keywords: Pro Se Complaint; Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Motion to Dismiss; Act of State Doctrine. Plaintiffs, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Albert W. Upshur, Yolanda D. Thompson, Bennie Sheppard, Yeadon, PA, Plaintiffs, pro sa. Erin K. Murdock-Park, Trial Attorney, with whom were Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attomey General, Robert E. Kirschman,.-/r., Director, and Brian A. Mizoguchi, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER KALPAN, Judge. On May 2,20t6, the pro se plaintiffs in this case, Albert W. Upshur, Yolanda D. Thompson, and Bennie Sheppard, filed a document styled "Secured Party's Mandamus to Dismiss by Congressional Order of the Secretary of State," which the Court has construed and accepted as a complaint. See Compl., Doc. No. l. Cunently before the Courl is the govemment's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(l) and 12(b)(6) ofthe Rules ofthe Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss (Def.'s Mot.), Doc. No. 7. For the reasons set forth below, the government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(l) is GRANTED and the Plaintiffs' complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. BACKGROUND Although the allegations in Plaintiffs' complaint are difficult to follow, it appears that the lynchpin oftheir claims is that they are sovereign entities in their own right (as opposed to citizens or residents ofthe United States), and that, as such, the "Act of State Doctrine" precludes them from being subject to legal proceedings in the United States. See Compl. at 2-3. It further appears that Plaintiffs are alleging that the United States violated their rights as us,Ps rRAc{rNG * CIJSTOT,ER RECEIPI & 9114 9014 9645 0594 5S21 15 Fd T.!d.ns or hqoin s oo ro USPS csn or cal{ 1-800.222-t8t I Dockets.Justia.com sovereign entities on the basis oflegal proceedings brought against them by the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In particular, according to documents attached to their complaint, Plaintiffs were found guilty ofviolating a variety of Pennsylvania state laws and sentenced to serve time for those offenses; Plaintiffs characterize the criminal proceedings as fraudulent. See Compl. Ex. F. Ex. J. Ex. L. Plaintiffs also appear to be alleging breach of contract by the United States, giving rrse to claim for damages. See Pls.' Resp. at 2 (citing exhibits to their response entitled "contracr, Legal Notice and Demand" and "Contract, Declaration of Independence"), Doc No. 6. Further, in their "Motion to Continue Complaint," which the Court construed as a response to the govemment's motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs claim they are owed "Three Trillion United States dollars . . . for violating our unalienable Constitutional rights." Pls.' Resp. at l. a Finally, Plaintiffs have attached to their Complaint a number of documents that thcy previously filed with various courts in Pennsylvania, which seek, among other things: 1) unla*ful imprisonment restitution in the amount of$300,000,000; 2) an unlimited line ofcredit from the state bank of Pennsylvania; 3) release from prison of more than sixteen individuals belonging to Plaintiffs' "family govemment;" 4) recognition ofPlaintiffs as a sovereign govemment; 5) retum oftitles and deeds to more than thirty properties alleged to have been fraudulently stolen; and 6) prosecution of state-employed individuals involved in the alleged violation of the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Compl. App. Ex. A2*AB at 57J0. The government has moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to RCFC l2(bX1), for lack ofjurisdiction. Def.'s Mot. at l. In the altemative, it moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to RCFC 1 2(bX6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id. DISCUSSION In deciding a motion to dismiss for iack ofsubject matter jurisdiction, the court accepts as true all undisputed facts in the pleadings and draws all reasonable inferences in favor ofthe plaintiff. Trusted Integration. lnc. v. United Srares, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The court may "inquire into jurisdictional facts" to determine whether it has jurisdiction. Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d991,993 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is well established that complaints that are filed by pro se plaintiffs are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kemer, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Nonetheless, even pro se plaintiffs must persuade the Court that jurisdictional requirements have been met. Bernard v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 497 ,499 (2004), affd, 98 Fed. App'x 860 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, Plaintiffs have not met that burden. The Court of Federal Claims is a court of "limited jurisdiction." Marcum LLP v. United jurisdicrion is the Tucker Act, which empowers it to hear "any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act ofCongress 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. g 1a91(a)(l) (2012). States, 753 F.3d 13 80, 13 82 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Its primary source of The Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity of the United States to allow a suit for money damages, United States v. Mitchell,463 U.S. 206,212 (1983), but it does not confer any substantive rights on a plaintiff. United States v. Testan,424 U.5.392,398 (1976). Therefore, a plaintiff seeking to invoke the court's Tucker Act jurisdiction must identiff an independent source ofa substantive right to money damages from the United States arising out ofa contract, statute, regulation or constitutional provision. Jan's Helicooter Serv.. Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299,1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs' allegations (described above) are insuffrcient to establish this Court's jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. First, even assuming its applicability, the act ofstate doctrine does not supply an independent source of law that grants the Plaintiffs a right to recover damages from the United States. Rather, it is ajudicially created principle which "in its traditional formulation precludes the courts of this country from inquiring into the validity of the public acts a recognized foreign sovereign power committed within its own territory." See Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 401, 423 (1964); see also Ffust Nat. Citv Bank v. Banco Nacional del Cuba,406 U.S. 759,763 (1972) (quoting Underhill v. Hemandez, 168 U.S.250, 252 (1897) (under the act of state doctrine "every sovereign State is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign State, and the courts ofone country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the govemment of another done within its own tenitory"). To the extent that the Plaintiffs allege that the application ofthe act ofstate doctrine somehow shielded them from prosecution under state law, or from their obligation to comply with any law, that claim is not one that is within this Court's jurisdiction because the act ofstate doctrine is not a statute, regulation or constitutional provision; it is ajudicially created principle. Further, it does not provide an independent source ofa substantive right to money damages. And to the extent that Plaintiffs are requesting that the Court overtum convictions and release individuals from prison, this Court does not possess jurisdiction to address matters committed to the criminal justice system. Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378,379 (Fed. Cir. 1994).' Plaintiffs' breach of contract allegations also cannot serve as a basis for this Court's ofjurisdiction under the Tucker Act. The purported "contracts" upon which Plaintiffs rely consist of notarized documents signed only by Plaintiffs and entitled "Contract, Legal Notice and Demand" and "Contract, Declaration of Independence." They purport to, among other things, disclaim Plaintiffs' obligations to pay debts or comply with the laws of the United exercise ' While the Court does have jurisdiction to entefiain claims for compensation based on unjust conviction and imprisonment, 28 U.S.C. $$ 1495, 2513, that jurisdiction extends only to unjust convictions for crimes committed against the United States, and only where such convictions have been reversed by a court on the grounds that the plaintiff was not guilty ofsuch crimes or where a plaintiff has received a pardon grounded in his innocence. 28 U.S.C. g 2513(a). Here, Plaintiffs were convicted of crimes against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, not the United States, and they have not, in any event, produced the certificate of irmocence that is a jurisdictional prerequisite to this Court's exercise of its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2513(b). See Wood v. United States, 9l Fed. Cl. 569, 57'l (2009) (compliance with section 2513, including the production ofa certificate ofinnocence, are pre-requisites to the jurisdiction ofthe Court of Federal Claims). States or other units of govemment and to subject the United States (and apparently all other govemmental entities) to obligations to pay Plaintiffs specified amounts of damages for violation of a variety of "rights" that are set forth in the documents. See Pls.' Resp. App. Exs. There is no evidence or even an allegation that these documents were ever signed or approved by any official of the United States (much less one with the requisite authority to bind the United States in contract). Accordingly, the documents cannot serve as a basis for this Court's exercise of jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to adjudicate claims for money damages that are based upon an express or implied contract with the United States. See Russell Com. v. United States , 53'7 F .2d 474,48I (Ct. Cl. 1976) (no express contract where "the contract documents that would manifest the offer and acceptance were not executed by any representative ofthe Govemment"); see also Trauma Serv. Crroup v. United States, 104 F.3d 1321, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (requiring a "wellpleaded allegation" of an express conftact "to overcome challenges to jurisdiction"). A{. Finally, while referring in a general way to alleged violations oftheir constitutional rights Plaintiffs have not specified the violation ofa constitutional provision which could give right to a claim for money damages. Nor have they identified a money mandating regulation or statute that could serve as the basis for this Courl's exercise ofjurisdiction under the Tucker Act. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of showing that this Court has jurisdiction over any ofthe claims in their complaint. CONCLUSION is On the basis of the foregoing, the govemment's motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(bxl) GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. A- /(/'----ELAINE D. KAPLAN 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.
