HADDAD v. USA, No. 1:2016cv01279 - Document 8 (Fed. Cl. 2017)
Court Description: UNREPORTED OPINION: Denying 6 Motion for Default Judgment; Granting 7 Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) and (6). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Victor J. Wolski. (vds) Copy to parties.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
HADDAD v. USA Doc. 8 AL ·' 3Jn tbe Wniteb <!Court of jfeberal No. 16-1279C (Filed January 30, 2017) NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JAN 3 0 2017 ************************ * RONALD-ROBERT HADDAD, Plaintiff, U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS * * * * v. * THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. * * * * ************************ ORDER This is the fifth in a series of cases filed in our court by plantiff Ronald Haddad, concerning alleged violations of law in connection with his conviction of federal crimes in a U.S. district court, and with his efforts to challenge that conviction in the district court and the Seventh Circuit. While the list of names of the individuals he purports to be suin g grows with each filing, this cannot change the simple t ruth t hat our court does not have the power to hear a case brought against t he United States for the matters about which he complains. Mister Haddad once again h as filed without prepayment of the filing fee, and seek s in forma pauperis status. The Supreme Court has made it clear that inmates must be assessed the filing fee, to be paid in installments, for each complaint t hey file in federal court. See Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629-33 (2016) (construing 28 U.S.C. § 1915). But because the matters alleged by Mr. Haddad could ch aritably be considered attempts to amend or supplement his prior pleadings concerning these individuals and actions (to the extent they are not merely duplicative), the Court will waive t he requirement that Mr. Haddad pay a filing fee. Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment, based on t h e failure of individuals to respond to his arbitrarily-imposed deadlines, is DENIED as frivolous. Defendant's motion to dismiss this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, under Rule 12(b)(l ) of the Rules of the United States Court of Feder al Claims (RCFC), is GRANTED. Mister Haddad is collater ally estopped from attempts to claim our court's jurisdiction over his disputes regarding the district court and Seventh Dockets.Justia.com ' , Circuit proceedings, due to the two prior opinions of this Court, Haddad v. United States, Nos. 15-640C & 15-820C, 2015 WL 7730933 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 30, 2015), and Haddad v. United States, No. 15-1075C, 2016 WL 5660266 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 30, 2016). See Kroeger v. U.S. Postal Serv., 865 F .2d 235, 239 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Chisolm v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 185, 194 (2008). Mor eover, the Court notes that Mr. Haddad failed to respond to the motion to dismiss this case, which would also warrant dismissal under RCFC 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See, e.g., Driver v. United States, No. 15-607C, 2015 WL 5684284, at *l (Fed. Cl. Sept. 28, 2015). Reviewing the complaint, plaintiff has still failed to iden tify a money-mandating source for our court's jurisdiction. See United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976); 28 U.S.C. § 1491. And Mr. H a dda d cannot avoid the doctrines t h at our Court lacks jurisdiction to review the proceedings of district courts, see Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994), or t he decisions of federal appellate courts, see Bafford u. United States, No. 09-030, 2009 WL 2391785, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 3, 2009), or criminal law matters, see Perhins v. United States, No. 13-023C, 2013 WL 3958350, at *3 (Fed. Cl. July 31, 2013); see also Stanwych u. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 308, 313-15 (20 16). For all of these r easons, this case must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Even if everything Mr. Haddad alleges is true , our court can do nothing about it --- as we h ave not been given t h e authority by Congress to a ddress such matters. Accordingly, t he government's motion to dismiss this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, under RCFC 12(b)(l), is GRANTED. The Clerk sh all close t he case. IT IS SO ORDERED. -2-
]]>
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.
