Paschall v. United States

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 24-849C (Filed: December 16, 2024) NOT FOR PUBLICATION ************************************* ALICIA PASCHALL, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * ************************************* OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Alicia Paschall, proceeding pro se, raises claims arising from child custody disputes. See Compl. (ECF 1). She has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, see Application (ECF 2), which is GRANTED. The government has moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1). Mot. to Dismiss (ECF 6). Plaintiff has not responded. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion for habeas corpus (ECF 8) is DENIED AS MOOT. This Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction — its authority to pass judgment on the cases before it — is limited to specific types of claims, most commonly non-tort claims for money damages under the Tucker Act. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); see also Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction.”). Perhaps confusingly for pro se litigants, it is not a forum for “federal claims” generally. Claims that are outside the Court’s jurisdiction must be dismissed. RCFC 12(h)(3). “In determining jurisdiction, a court must accept as true all undisputed facts asserted in the plaintiff’s complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 797 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). “Although a pro se plaintiff’s complaint is held to a less stringent standard than those prepared by counsel, pro se litigants are not excused from meeting jurisdictional requirements.” Spengler v. United States, 688 F. App’x 917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations omitted) (citing Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980), and Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987)); see also Howard-Pinson v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 551, 553 (2006) (explaining that

pro se litigants are “entitled to a liberal construction of [their] pleadings”) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972)). At the outset, Plaintiff’s claims appear to be directed at employees of the State of Washington, and perhaps private parties. This Court has no jurisdiction over claims against defendants other than the United States, United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941), which means that this Court cannot hear claims against “states, state officials, and state agencies.” Lawton v. United States, 621 F. App’x 671, 672 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Sherwood, 312 U.S. at 588). To the extent Plaintiff wishes to sue private parties, those claims are outside this Court’s jurisdiction as well. Sherwood, 312 U.S. at 588. Any claims that Plaintiff intends to make against defendants other than the United States must therefore be dismissed. Id. To the extent that any of Plaintiff’s claims do implicate the United States, most of them are outside the Court’s jurisdiction for other reasons. Many of her claims involve alleged harms to her family members who are not named as plaintiffs. Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue those claims, see, e.g., Witchard v. United States, 165 Fed. Cl. 125, 136 (2023), so they must be dismissed. Turning to the substance of the injuries mentioned in the Complaint, c laims for money in this Court under the Tucker Act are premised on (1) contracts between the plaintiff and the United States, (2) illegal exactions of money by the United States, or (3) laws or constitutional provisions that require the United States to pay money to the plaintiff. Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)); Spencer v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 349, 355 (2011). Claims in the third category require a “money mandating” source of federal law, that is, a federal statute or regulation that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained and is reasonably amenable to the reading that it mandates a right of recovery in damages.” Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. F.A.A., 525 F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quotes and citations omitted) (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 217 (1983), and United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 473 (2003)). Many of the federal statutes Plaintiff mentions are criminal laws. See Compl. at 1. Claims for violations of criminal laws are outside this Court’s jurisdiction. Treviño v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 204, 209 (2013); Jones v. United States, 440 F. App’x 916, 918 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Julian v. United States, 658 F. App’x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988, and 12203 are not within this Court’s jurisdiction either. Doiban v. United States, 173 Fed. Cl. 527, 544 (2024) (citing Ganaway v. United States, 557 F. App’x 948, 949 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); Drake v. United States, 792 F. App’x 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Hills v. United States, 162 Fed.

-2-

Cl. 750, 754 (2022), aff’d, No. 2023-1280, 2023 WL 2660172 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2023) (citing Holland v. United States, 149 Fed. Cl. 543, 555 (2020)).

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF 6) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 2) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion for habeas corpus (ECF 8) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Stephen S. Schwartz STEPHEN S. SCHWARTZ Judge

-3-