RUSSIAN v. USA, No. 1:2017cv01820 - Document 13 (Fed. Cl. 2018)
Court Description: UNREPORTED OPINION and ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1); denying 11 Motion to Strike; denying 12 Motion for Default Judgment. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Charles F. Lettow. (dls) Service on parties made. (Plaintiff served via certified mail; Article No. 7016 3010 0000 4308 3839)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
RUSSIAN v. USA Doc. 13 OREffiENAL lfr tbt @nitt! $ltutts @owt of ft[trsl @laims No. l7-1820C (Filed: February 2, 2018) (NOT TO BE PUBLISHED) + * *'i :t **** {( :1. ************ * *,1' * * * * * * + * FILED FEB - 2 n0t8 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS JAMES RUSSIAN. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES, Defendant. ,t +,t *. :t * * * *'t * * *,1. :* ******** James Russian, pro + ** 1.,1,* *** *,t se, Leavenworth, Kansas. Anand R. Sambhwani, Trial Attomey, commercial Litigation Branch, civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. With him on the briefs were chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, civil Division, Robert E. Kirshman, Civil Jr., Director, and Allison Kidd-Miller, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D'C' OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Judge. Plaintiff. James Russian, is an inmate at the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas. compL. at 1; Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss ("Def.'s Mot.") at 1,ECFNo.8. OnNovember 17, 2017,Mr. Russian filed a complaint in this case seeking injunctive and monetary relief in a suit of two against the United States. SeeCompl. at 1. In June 2015, Mr. Russian was convicted of amrnunition by a prohibited ciunts ofillegal firearm possession, one count ofpossession AA; see person, and o-ne count of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, compl. Ex. 1. Among other aiso Def's Mot. at l, and was sentenced to 101 months in prison, Def.'s Mot. at and things, Mr. Russian alleges that his incarceration amounts to "being kidnapped, tortured[,] hypothecated by [a] foreign state[]." Compl. 1, ?El,h 3810 0000 q3D6 3831 Dockets.Justia.com Mr. Russian proclaims "himself to be a sovereign citizen, immune to the jurisdiction and rules of'the United States' courts. Compl. Ex. E.r He avers that his "[c]itizenship is in [h]eaven" and that he is a "Judicial Power Occupant of [the] Kansas Republic," Compl' Ex- G (emphasis omitted), by virtue of being a "native-bom, on American soil," Compl. at l. This, in Mr. Russian's view, endows him with "all the [r]ights, privileges, and immunities recognized in the Constitution [of the] Kansas Republic." Compl. Ex. G (emphasis omitted). He assefis that he is "not, nor ha[s he] ever been a citizen or subject of the United States," Compl. Ex. G, and is therefore "a foreign sovereign American national who [is] . . . protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976." Compl. at 1. Mr. Russian therefore views all actions taken by the United States govemment as non-binding "commercial acts'" See Compl. 1-2. Mr. Russian specifically requests "immediate release from prison," "[e]xtinguishments of all bonds, a full accounting and closure of this case . . . , [and] correcting any and all applicable records pertaining thereto"; clearing his "so called criminal record;" appointment ofa trustee "for dealing with the proceeds[] derived from the accounts for which [Mr. Russian] is entitled;" olacement of Mr. Russian on a "Do NoT DETAIN OR AP[P]REHEND" list nationwide; iettlement of any claims he or his family may file; and "whatever else [the court] deems to be proper andjust." ComPl. at 13. Pending before the court is the government's motion for dismissal of Mr. Russian's complaint under Rule 12(bX1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims C'RCFC) for lack of subjict matter jurisdiction. See generally Def.'s Mot. Mr. Russian has responded with a Motion to Strike the govemment's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 11, and an Affidavit of Notice of Default and Default Judgment, ECF No. 12. STANDARDS FOR DECISION In any action, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Reynolds v. Army &AirForce Exch.5erv.,846F.2d746,747 (Fed, Cir. 1988) When ruling on a motionto dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction, the court must "accept as true all undisputed facts asserted in the plaintiffs complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor ofthe plainliff." Trusted 'lntegration, Ini.v. UnitedStates,659F.3d 1l59, 1163 (Fed. Cir.2011). The leniency afforded to a"pro se plaintiff with respect to formalities does not relieve pro se litigants oftheir obligation to satisf jurisdictional requirements. Kelley v. Secretary, United States Dep't of Labor,812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity of the United States, see United States v. Mitchell,463 u.s. 206,212 (1983), and provides this court with jurisdiction over "any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act ofCongress or any rJgulation of an executive department . . . for liquidated or unliquidated damages." 28 U.S.C. $ 14-91(axl). However, the Tucker Act does not provide a plaintiff with substantive rights. United statei v.'Testan,424 U.S. 392,398 (1976). Rather, to establish jurisdiction, "a plaintiff must identifu a separatc source of substantive law that creates the right to money damages." Fisher v' rFor a more detailed explanation ofthe beliefs and claims of self-titled "Sovereign '753'758-59 & n'8 (W'D Ya' 2007)' Citizens," see Bryant v. Wash. Mut. Bank,524 F. Supp.2d IJnited States,402F.3d 1167,1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc in relevant part) (ciling Mitchell, 463 U.S. at216:Testan,424U.S. at398). Jurisdiction over claims for money damages does not give rise to ,,independent jurisdiction over . . . claims for equitable reliefl" see Taylor v. united States,ll3 Fed. Cl. 171, 173 (2013); see also United States v. King,395 U.S. 1'2-3 (1969) (citing Glidden Co. v. Zdanok,37O U.S. 530,557 (1962); United States v. Jones,131 U.S. 1, 9 (1889), United Ststes v. Alire,73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 573, 575 (1867)); Halim v. United States,106 Fed. cl. 677, 684-85 (2012) (citing National Air Traffic Contollers Ass'n v. united stqtes, 160 F.3d 714, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 1998)) ("This court has never been afforded the general authority to issue declaratory judgments or to grant injunctive relief."). ,,lf court lacks jurisdiction to decide the merits of a case, dismissal is required as a matter of law." Grayv. United states,69Fed. cI.95,98 (2005) (citing Ex parte Mccardle,T4 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514 (1868); Thoen v. United States,765 F.2d 1 1 10, 1 1 16 (Fed' Cir' 1985)); see also Trevifio, 113 Fed. Cl. a1207 ("Where the court has not been granted jurisdiction to hear a claim, the case must be dismissed.") (citing Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.,546 U'S' 500' 514 (2006)). a ANALYSN The only reliefsought by Mr. Russian is equitable, despite his protestations that he has sought monetary reliel and this court lacks jurisdiction over all such claims. See Taylor,ll3 t-ed. Cl. at 173. Even if the court were empowered to afford such relief, the court would still lack jurisdiction over Mr. Russian's claims because they all relate to his request that the court reviJw the decision ofthe United States District Court for the District of Kansas and overtum his conviction. See Compl. at 13, Ex. AA. The Tucker Act does not provide this court with iurisdiction to review the decisions of other federal courts. Sse Trevifio v. United States, 113 or Fed. Cl. 204,208 (2013) ("[T]his court does not have jurisdiction over other federal courts their employees :') (citing Joshua v. United States, l7 F.3d 378, 3 80 (Fed' Cir' 1994))' jurisdiction in this Because Mr. Russian has not asserted any claim that gives rise to court, this action must be dismissed. See Thoen,'165 F.2d aI1116' CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, the govemment's motion to dismiss Mr. Russian's complaint is GRANTED.2 The clerk shall enter judgment in accord with this disposition' No costs. It is so ORDERED. Charles F. Lettow Judge 2Plaintiff s motion to strike is DENIED, as is his 1 motion for default judgment'
]]>
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.
