ANTHONY v. USA

Filing 3

UNPUBLISHED OPINION and ORDER. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Francis M. Allegra. (dls) Copy to parties.

ORIgINAt
lln@)y @nfftD $ltstes @ourt of /r[rrul @lufmg
No. l3-931 C
This Opinion Will Not Be Published in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Reporter Because
Does Not Add Significantly to the Body of Law.

It

FILED

(Filed: November 27,2013)
NOv 2

?

2013

SILVA WAYNE ANTHONY,

,Hr,?88'-u8lo?fi'

Plaintiff,

THE LNITED STATES,
Defendant.

OPINION and ORDER
On November 22,2013, Silva Wa1,ne Anthony (plaintiff) filed a complaint seeking, inter
a/rd, to collect upon an alleged judgment by having this court order the seizure of $ 119,525,127 .'73
from the United States Department of Justice or perhaps the City of New Bedford, Massachusetts
(it is not clear from the complaint which).

This court is solemnly obliged, on its own accord, to address obvious questions conceming
its subject matter jurisdiction. See Mitchellv. Maurer,293 U.S.237,244 (1934). This court
recognizes that plaintiffis acting pro se before this court, and thus the court will hold the form of
plaintiffs submissions to a less stringent standard than those drafted by an attorney. See Reed v.
UnitedStates,23 Cl. Ct.517,521 (1991) (citing Es telle v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97 (1976)). Having
reviewed plaintiff s complaint, this court is cefiain that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the claim
that plaintiff raises.

With very limited exceptions, the jurisdictional statutes goveming the United States Court
ofFederal Claims grant authority to the court only to issuejudgments for money against the United
States and then, only when they are grounded in a contact, a money-mandating statute, or the
takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. See United States v. Testan, 424 U.S.392,397-98
(1976);28 U.S.C. $ 1491. Plaintiff makes some references in his complaint to the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - but this is not a money-mandating
provision, as would support this court's exercise ofjurisdiction. See LeBlanc v. United States,50

F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Carruthv. UnitedStates,62TF.2d 1068, i081 (Ct. Cl. 1980).
At all events, this court lacks the authority to order the execution ofjudgments allegedly rendered
by other courts. SeeAliv. United States,2007 WL516179l, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 11,2007);see
also Ramirez v. United States,36 Fed. Cl. 467,412 (1996).
Accordingly, the Clerk shall dismiss plaintiffs complaint for lack ofjurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.