WALKER v. USA

Filing 8

ORDER of Dismissal granting 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; and granting 7 Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink. (dls) Copy to parties.

Download PDF
0ffigG$${Ar lJr tllt @nite! $.tutes @ourt of felrrsl @lsfmg No. 13-376C (Filed: September 27, 2013) ******r***,t***:**:i(:t {.:t ***+ LEVAN A. WALKER, '& r,<,{. r. FILED sEP 2 7 Plaintffi 2013 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS LTNITED STATES, ***:1.,t* {< rr ** {, Defendant. *,t*****,f 1.,t ***,t {<* ORDER Defendant filed a motion to dismiss this action on August 6,2013. Plaintiffs response was due on September 6,2013. No response has been filed as of the date of this order. Because it is apparent on the face of the complaint that we lackjurisdiction over the allegations contained in plaintiff s complaint, we need not wait for a response. ,See Rule l2(h) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims. Plaintiff s allegations concem investigations of him by the ,,Niagara County Sheriff Department" and the FBI during which these entities stole "ideas" from plaintiff"over the phone." Compl. 1 . He also alleges that either or both of these entities spread false rumors .,round Niagara County,' conceming plaintiffls career as a rap music artist. Compl. l. The complaint then lists five wrongs plaintiff believes were perpetrated against him, which may or may not have a connection to the preceding allegations. These alleged wrongs consist of being impersonated in pomographic videos, use of his music on satellite and local radio stations without plaintiffs assent, commercial use of the initials "BP, LW, and LV', on various products, the unauthorized use of his likeness by .,the paparazzt," and lastly a video of plaintiffposted on YouTube without his consent. See Compl. l-2. The result of all of this is that plaintiff has been deprived of a successful career as a "Hollywood star." Compl. 2. plaintiff seeks ,.three to four quadrillion,' dollars. Compl. 2. The Tucker Act gives this cou( jurisdiction over claims for money against the federal govemment based on a regulatory, statutory, or constitutional provision or on a contract with the federal government. 28 U.S.C. $ l49l(a)(l) (2012). Most of the wrongs listed in the complaint have no connection to the federal govemment and thus cannot give rise to a cause of action under the Tucker Act. To the extent that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is implicated by general reference to an investigation, plaintiff has not alleged the violation of a statute, regulation, constitutional provision, or contractual provision mandating that he be paid money. See United States v. Connolly, T16 F.2d 882, 885 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing (Jnited States v. Mitchell,463 U.S. 206 (1983). We have no jurisdiction over any of the allegations made in plaintiff s complaint. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. We also grant plaintiff s motion to proceed in/o rma pauperis. The clerk of court is directed to dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack ofjurisdiction. a

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?