WILLRICH v. USA

Filing 8

UNPUBLISHED OPINION and ORDER granting 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; and directing the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1). No costs. Signed by Judge Charles F. Lettow. (dls) Copy to parties.

ORNO!I\IAI.
llntbt @nftr! $rtutts @ourt of frlrrs[

@luims

Nos. l3-406C, 13-410C, l3-438C, 13-448C,

t3-449C, 13-450C, 13-451C, 13-452C, 13-453C
(Filed: July 3,2013)
(NOT TO BE PUBLISHED)
**

**

** * ** * *** *** *'*:t*t

:*++ *+,1

FILED

*1,+****
JUL,

CANDACE WILLRICH,

- 3 2013

U.S. COURT OF
FEDERAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff,

UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
+

*

rr

't 'l *

,1

*

:t {.

***

{. + ,t

{<

,t

*

,t ,t ,t

**,t,t ***{<{<*,}*

OPINION AND ORDER
LETTOW, Judge.
Plaintiff, Candace Willrich, has filed nine complaints requesting monetary relief from the
government in various amounts ranging as high as $ 100 billion for alleged assaults upon her
person and character, in addition to other alleged inflicted injuries. Plaintiffhas requested leave
to proceed inJbrma pauperis in each ofthese docketed cases, representing to the court that she is
cunently unemployed, and that her cash assets are minimal, totaling significantly less than
$

10,000.

BACKGROUND'
Ms. Willrich alleges in these nine cases a variety ofassaults upon her person, theft ofher
intellectual property, intentional misrepresentations to Ms. Willrich, defamation of her character,
and disparagement of the reputation ofher business. See, e.g., Compl., Case No. l3-438C
(entitled "Complaint for Attempted Murder on the Moming of June 25, 2013"); Compl., Case
No. 13-410C (entitled "Complaint for Attempt to Stroke a Mathematician's Brain"). These
injuries have allegedly been inflicted upon Ms. Willrich by multiple persons, including but not
limited to President Obama, Attomey General Eric Holder, the United States Secret Service, and

'This statement of the circumstances relating to Ms. Willrich's claim is taken from her
submissions and does not include any findinss of fact.

Ms. Malia Obama. Mot. for Order to Seal Ct. Records, Case No. 13-406C at Jfl 10, 16; Compl.,
Case No. l3-410C, Ex. I at 5

Willrich filed her first case in this court, docketed as No. l3406C. She filed the case docketed as No. l3-410C on June 10, 2013, and another docketed as
Case No. l3-438C on June 28, 2013. The remaining six cases were filed in this court on July l,
On June 17,2013, Ms.

2013.

ANALYSIS

A. Applications

to Proceed InFonma Pauperis

Contemporaneously with filing each complaint, Ms. Willrich submitted a motion for
leave to proceed informa pauperls. These applications are appropriately supported, and thus, for
good cause shown, Ms. Willrich's applications to proceed informa paupens are GRANTED.

B. Jurisdiction
The court may address jurisdiction sua.qponte even ifjurisdiction is not challenged by an
opposing party. "[A] 'court must satisfy itselfthat it hasjurisdiction to hear and decide a case
before proceeding to the merits."' Hardie v. United states,367 F.3d l29g, 1290 (Fed. cir. 2004)
(quoting PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chem. Co.,304 F.3d 1235, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing View
Eng'g, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc., 115 F .3d 962,963 (Fed. Cir. 1997))). Under the Tucker
Act, this court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims founded "upon the Constitution, or any
Act of Congress or any regulation ofan executive department, or upon any express or implied
contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding
in tort." 28 U.S.C. $ 1491(a)(1) (emphasis added). Because Ms. Willrich,s complaints
exclusively allege torts and do not draw upon any money-mandating statute, regulation or
contract, the court does not possess subject matter jurisdiction over her claims. Accordingly, the
court must dismiss Ms. Willrich's claims for lack ofjurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules
of the Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC").

CONCLUSION
The plaintiff s nine docketed cases zue DISMISSED lor lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC l2(b)(1) because each allegation contained in these complaints
sounds in tort. The clerk shall enter judgment in accord with this decision.

No costs.

It is so ORDERED.
Charles F. Lettow
Judge