WASHINGTON v. USA

Filing 18

Order of Dismissal granting 12 Motion to Dismiss and denying plaintiff's motion for immediate relief. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams. (dls) Copy to parties.

ORNGIf{AT
lJntbe @ntte! btutts @ourt otjfeDersl @lsimg
No. 14-101lC
(Filed: July 28,2015)

* * ***

* **r.*r.*******

* *t t ***,k

ALEXANDRIA WASHINGTON.

FILED
JUL

Plaintiff,

2I

2015

rgb?rtf,-'8&?fi,

v.

THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
***t

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * t ****,i

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WILLIAMS,

Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motion is granted,
and this action is dismissed.

Background

Plaintiff p1q se Alexandria Washington, also identifiing herself as Azmiyah Bey,
alleges violations of her Constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
Amendments, as well as under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. $$ 1983, 1985, and 1986,
stemming from the removal of her daughter from Plaintiffs custody following a diagnosis of
Shaken Baby Syndrome. Compl. 1, Exs. A-B; Aff.2-3; Mot. for Immediate Relief 1-2. Plaintiff
alleges that the "City of Charleston has kidnapped and human trafficked [her] daughter for profit
without probable cause, any allegations or Jursidiction," that the Coles County (Illinois) court
lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiff "due to Title 8 USC 1481," that she has been denied her "right
to parent" as a result of the placement of her daughter into foster care, that the Illinois
Departrnent of Children and Family Services "[i]nitiated the kidnap of [her] baby with the
continued human trafficking based on discrimination due to [Plaintiffs] mental health disability
diagnosis as an adolescent," and that the Coles County sheriff made a false report regarding an
Plaintiff
altercation in court during a hearing. Compl. 1; Mot. for Immediate Relief
requests that this Court dismiss a pending criminal case against her, secure the retum of her
daughter to Plaintiff s custody, and grant Plaintiff$1.6 billion due to "loss of [e]mployment . . . ,

l-2.

[]oss of

a natural bonding while stripping [her] baby

of her natural culture . . ., []oss of stable
housing, loss of income due to traveling expenses[,] etc." Compl. 1; Mot. for Immediate Relief
2. Plaintiff claims that she has filed a "complaint against the United States based on the Actions
of its[] employees in the State of Illinois, Which holds the United States responsible for the
actions of all Government Agencies and Agents acting for or under the United States Rulings,"
and that the United States must be held accountable for her stated claims. See Mot. for
Immediate Relief l.
Discussion
Subject-matter jurisdiction must first be established before the Court may rule on the
merits of the action. See Hardie v. United States,367 F.3d 1288, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The
Court must dismiss the action if subject-matter cafurot be established. Adair v. United States,
497 F.3d 1244, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(bX1), the Court will construe the Complaint in a manner most favorable to the Plaintiff,
assuming all factual allegations as true. Pennineton Seed. lnc. v. Produce Exch. No. 299,457
F.3d 1334, 1338 (Fed. Cir.2006).

The filings of p1q se litigants are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers." Naskar v. United States. 82 Fed. Cl. 319, 320 (2008) (intemal citation and
quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the Court's jurisdiction, and
must do so by a preponderance of the evidence, even if proceeding p1q se. See Myers
Investieative & Sec. Servs.. lnc. v. United States, 275 F.3d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002);
Revnolds 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 United States is immune from suit, save by consent, which "cannot be implied but
must be unequivocally expressed." United States v. Kine, 395 U.S. 1, a Q969\; United States v.
Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). The waiver of immunity by the United States must be
"shictly construed. . . in favor of the sovereign." Dep't of the Army v. Blue Fox, 525 U.S. 255,
26r (r9e9).
The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. $ la91(a)(1), provides that this Court

shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United
States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any
regulation of an 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.
Although Plaintiff argues that the United States must be held accountable for the alleged
kidnapping of her daughter by the City of Charleston and for the conduct of the Coles County
Illinois Court in placing her daughter in foster care, she has not alleged any conduct by any
United States employees or agencies. This Court's jurisdiction is limited to suits against the
United States, and the Court does not have jurisdiction over claims "against states, localities,
state and local govemment officials, state courts, state prisons, or state employees." Trevino v.
United States,557 F. App'x 995,998 (Fed. Cir.2014); see also United States v. Sherwood,312
U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (holding that this Court's jurisdiction "is confined to the rendition of

money judgments in suits brought for that relief against the United States"); Smith v. United
States, 99 Fed. Cl. 581, 583 (2011) (citing Moore v. Pub Defender's Office, 76 Fed. Cl.617,620
(2007)) ("[T]he Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to hear claims against states,
localities, state and local govemment entities, or state and local govemment offrcials and
employees."); Steohenson v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 186, 190 (2003) ("[T]he only proper
defendant for any matter before this court is the United States, not its officers, nor any other
individual.") (emphasis in original).

Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under various provisions of the Civil
Rights Act, specifrcally 42 U.S.C. S$ 198i, 1985, and 1986, for "violations of [her] 4s
Amendment and 5rn Amendment secured rights . . . ." Aff. 2. However, this Court lacks
jurisdiction over claims brought under $$ 1983, 1985, and 1986, asjurisdiction over these claims
is vested exclusively in the district courts. See Clemmons v. United States, 283 F. App'x 786,
787 (Fed. Cir.2008); Buckv. United States,No. l1-209C,2011 WL 2633624, at *3 (Fed. Cl.
July 6, 2011); see also 28 U.S.C. $ 1343 (2006).

The gravamen of PlaintifPs Complaint is that wrnamed officials at the Coles County
courthouse improperly placed her daughter in the foster care system, and that the Coles County
Court lacked jurisdiction over the custody proceedings and a subsequent criminal charge. Compl.
1. However, this Court has no authority to review decisions rendered by state courts. See D.C.
Ct. Aop. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983) (stating that review of state court judgments
"may be had only in [the Supreme] Court"); Landers v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl.297,301
(1997) ("This Court does not have the power to review state court actions.").
Conclusion
Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Motion for Immediate Relief is
DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss this action.