Mullings v. United States

• Court: United States Court of Federal Claims
• Decided: April 27, 2023
• Docket: 22-1874
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 22-1873, 22-1874 (Filed: April 27, 2023)

************************************* * WESLEY KEITH MULLINGS , 1 * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * *************************************

ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff Wesley Keith Mullings, proceeding pro se, filed two complaints with this Court

alleging trademark infringement stemming from the use of his name in proceedings before the

Union Township Municipal Court, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, and the

Newark Municipal Court. See ECF No. 1-1 at 3-8 (Case No. 22-1873); ECF No. 1-2 at 6-8

(Case No. 22-1874). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants – two New Jersey Municipalities

and a number of private individuals – committed “slander, libel . . . and identity theft” and

threatened his incarceration. See ECF No. 1 at 1 (Case No. 22-1873); ECF No. 1 at 2 (Case No.

22-1874). Plaintiff seeks damages of “$500,000.00 [for each incident] of trademark

infringement,” “$200,000.00 [for each incident] of slander and libel,” and other damages

associated with alleged “failure to protect” him and “fraudulent and false statements.” ECF No.

1 Both of Plaintiff’s complaints identify Plaintiff as “Wesley-Keith: Mullings, holder in due course of ®WESLEY KEITH MULLINGS©”. 1 1 at 6-7 (Case No. 22-1873); ECF No. 1 at 7-8 (Case No. 22-1874). Plaintiff further seeks

injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent Defendants from using his name. ECF No. 1 at 7

(Case No. 22-1873); ECF No. 1 at 7-8 (Case No. 22-1874).

The filings of pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings

drafted by lawyers.” Naskar v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 319, 320 (2008) (quoting Haines v.

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). However, pro se plaintiffs still bear the burden of

establishing the Court’s jurisdiction and must do so by a preponderance of the evidence.

Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Tindle v. United

States, 56 Fed. Cl. 337, 341 (2003). The Court must dismiss the action if it finds subject-matter

jurisdiction to be lacking. Adair v. United States, 497 F.3d 1244, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Plaintiff’s complaints must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because his allegations

are not directed at the Federal Government, nor did he name the Federal Government as

Defendant. See ECF No. 1 at 1 (Case No. 22-1873); ECF No. 1 at 1 (Case No. 22-1874). See 28

U.S.C. § 1491(a) (“The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render

judgment upon any claim against the United States …” (emphasis added)); “[T]he only proper

defendant for any matter before [the Court of Federal Claims] is the United States, not its

officers, nor any other individual.” Stephenson v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 186, 190 (2003); see

also United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941).

This case is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to

enter judgment accordingly.

s/Mary Ellen Coster Williams MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Senior Judge