Howard v. United States

• Court: United States Court of Federal Claims
• Decided: February 7, 2014
• Docket: 1:13-cv-00856
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Ol€lil%lll§lll

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No.13-856C (Filed: February 7, 2014) =l¢ U.S.COUHTOF

ROMELL R. HOWARD, : FEDERAL OLA|MS Plaintiff, * >l¢ Vl * * THE UNITED STATES, * =k Defendar1t. * * *>l<>l<=l<*>l<*=l¢>l<>|<>l<=l<=l==l<>l<*=l<=l<>l<*>|<=|<=l<>l<*>|<*>l<*>|<>l<*>l<>l<>|<>l< *

OPlNION AND ORDER

WHEELER, Judge.

On October 3(), 2013, pro se Plaintiff Romell R. Howard filed a complaint against the Government seeking $314,000,000 in damages. This amount represents one dollar for each person in a 2012 estimate of the U.S. population. Mr. Howard appears to argue that he is entitled to this amount because of a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

On December 1l, 2013, counsel for the United States filed a motion to dismiss Mr.

Howard’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule IZ(b)(l) of the Court of F ederal Claims ("RCFC"). Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss l. The Government contends that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Howard’s claims because his complaint fails to articulate a claim that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain. For the reasons stated below, the Govemment’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED.

Background

Mr. Howard’s complaint is titled "Request for legal representation." The complaint explains that U.S. currency is inscribed with the words "In god we trust" and "[t]his is legal tender for all debt public and private." (Dkt. No. l.) From those facts, Mr. Howard appears to argue that each dollar bill entitles him to legal representation. In his complaint, Mr. Howard does not state his cause of action, but he alludes to a

"situation" and indicates that the washington D.C. police department held him in custody. His petition for In Forma Pauperis, which the Court granted, states that he is not currently a prisoner. (Dl

On January 10, 2014, Mr. Howard filed a response to the Government’s motion to dismiss. Mr. Howard’s response was written on post-it notes attached to a copy of the U.S. Constitution. The Court granted Mr. HoWard leave on January 29, 2014 to supplement his response. In the supplemental response Mr. Howard alleges that his Fourth Amen_dment rights were violated because the "prison receipt" did not have probable cause. This appears to refer to the "Prisoner’s Property Receipt" that Mr. Howard attached to his complaint.

Analysis

In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. Ainslie v. United States, 355 F.3d 1371, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Godwin v. United States, 338 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Though pro se litigants are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers," failures to comply with the Court’s jurisdictional requirements are not excused. Hampel v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 235, 237 (20ll) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Where subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, the plaintiff must establish the Court’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

This Court’s jurisdiction is established by the Tucl2513 is a prerequisite for suit. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rule l2(b)(1) is GRANTED, and the clerk is instructed to

DISMISS the complaint without prejudice.

THOMAS C. WHEELER Judge

IT IS SO ORDERED.