MORGAN v. USA, No. 1:2016cv00937 - Document 13 (Fed. Cl. 2016)
Court Description: REPORTED OPINION and ORDER dismissing plaintiff's complaint. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Elaine D. Kaplan. (dls) Copy to parties. (Plaintiff served via certified mail; Article No. 7011 0470 0002 5084 3761)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
MORGAN v. USA Doc. 13 (}RH$INAI" l|in tW @nitr! 9rtatts @ourt of fr[trsl @lsimg Pro Se FILED ocT 2 4 LEWIS R. MORGAN, 2016 U.S. COURT OF Plaintiff, FEDERAL CLAIMS No. 16-937C (Iiled: October 24, 2016) Ke)'words: Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Pro Se Plaintiffs. THE LINITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Lewis R. Morgan, La Pine, OR, Plaintiff, pro 59. Barbara E. Thomas, Trial Attomey, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Depaxtment of Justice, Washington, DC, with whom werc Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Assistant Director, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attomey General, for Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER KAPLAN, Judge. Lewis R. Morgan, the pro se plaintiff in this case, commenced this action by filing a document entitled "Motion (Rule 7) Requested Transfer from 15CV280i6, to Federal Circuit Court ' on August2,2016, which the Court treated as a complaint. See Doc. No. 1 . In it, Plaintiff seemingly sought transfer ofa case from the Circuit Court ofDeschutes County, Oregon, to this Court. Id. at 2. Plaintiff asserted an "action in equity" as well as "several" breaches ofcontracts which prevent him from using his truck and trailer. Id. at 3. He appeared to allege these breaches stemmed from the failure of Hartford Casualty Insurance Group, the insurance company allegedly insuring his vehicle, to pay replacement costs after Plaintiff totaled his vehicle, as well as from unspecified contracts with Linn County Federal Credit Union. See id. at 3 5. The document did not specify any reliefsought, other than transfer to this Court. See id. at 5-6. On August 31,2016, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Doc. No. 4. In it, Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment and "relief persuant [sic] to 28 USC section 2201 & 2202" from the "State of Oregon (LINN CO FCU) in the United States of America." Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that the State ofOregon is "absconding with, and is restricting" Plaintiff from the use ofhis assets. Id. at 2. He also raises concems regarding unfair debt collection practices, as well as a claim that the State ofOregon assaulted him, his family, and his property, and took his son hostage for a $30,000 ransom. at 3-4. Plaintiffls amended complaint also asserts causes of !! ?Drr Dq?o oDDa 506q 3?h1 Dockets.Justia.com action against the State ofOregon, Linn County Federal Credit Union, and Hartford Casualty Insurance Group, regarding infringement of unspecified copyrights, trademarks, trade dress, and patents, for which he seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. See id. at 6-9. For the reasons discussed below, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff s claims. Therefore, the amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. DISCUSSION The Court may raise subj ect matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time. Rick's Mushroom Serv.. Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (intemal citation omitted); see also Arbaueh v. Y&H Com., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006) (noting that an objection to federal court subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by a court on its own initiative at any stage in the litigation). "lf the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." RCFC 12(h)(3); see also Arbaueh, 546 U.S. at 50A7,514 (stating that "courts . . . have an independent obligation to determine whether subject matter exists, even in the absence ofa challenge from any party"). Generally, in determining subject matter jurisdiction, the court accepts as true all undisputed facts in the pleadings and draws all reasonable inferences in favor ofthe plaintiff. See Trusted Inteeration. Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The courr may "inquire into jurisdictional facts" to determine whether it has jurisdiction. Rocovich v. United States, 933 F .2d 991,993 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is well established that complaints that are filed by oro se plaintiffs, like this one, are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kemer, 404 U.S. 5I9, 520 (1972). Nonetheless, even p19_gg plaintiffs must persuade the Court that jurisdictional requirements have been met. Bemard v. Unitec States, 59 Fed,. Cl. 497 , 499 (2004), aff d, 98 F. App'x 860 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Zulueta v. United States, 553 F. App'x 983, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("the leniency afforded to a p1q_99 litigant with respect to mere formalities does not relieve the burden to meet jurisdictional requirements" (intemal quotation and citation omitted)). The plaintiffbears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Brandt v. United States, 710 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv.,846F.2d746,748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The Tucker Act grants the United States Court ofFederal Claims the power "to render judgment upon 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. $ 1491(a). It serves as a waiver of sovereign immunity and a jurisdictional grant, but it does not create a substantive cause ofaction. Jan's Helicooter Serv.. Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299,1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A plaintiff, therefore, must establish that "a separate source of substantive law. . . creates the right to money damages." ld. (quoting Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d, 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc in relevant part)); Rick's Mushroom Serv.. Inc., 521 F.3d at 1343 (stating "plaintiff must look beyond the Tucker Act to identi$ a substantive source of law that creates the right to recovery ofmoney damages against the United States" (citation omitted)). Here, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff s claims. Although Plaintiffs original and amended complaints list the United States as defendant, his allegations relate solely to actions allegedly taken by the State of Oregon and private companies. But the United States is the only proper defendant before the Court ofFederal Claims. Lawton v. United States, 621 Fed. App'x 671,672 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (citing United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941)). Because the factual allegations are directed only at state and private actors, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims asserted in the complaint. See Lawton, 621 Fed. AFp'x at 672; see also Vlahakis v. United States,2l5 Ct. Cl. 1018, 1018 (1978) (observing that assertions against state actors and state courts are beyond this Court's jurisdiction). CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, PlaintifPs complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety, without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enterjudgment accordingly. Each party shall bear its own costs. IT IS SO ORDERED. el4^-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.
