JONES v. USA

Filing 8

Order of Dismissal granting 5 Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) and (6). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams. (dls) Copy to parties.

0R['$il\lAr
llntbe @nite! States @ourt otJFelersl @taimg
No. 15-ll42C
(Filed: April 20,2016)
t * tr * * * * * * tr * * * * *

Jr

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

FILED
APR 2 0

2016

U.S. COURT OF
FEDERAL CLAIMS

DONALD G. JONES,

Plaintiff,
v.

THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
***

****************t

** ** *'i

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WILLIAMS,

Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to dismiss. For the reasons
stated below, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.

Plaintiffpp

se Donald Jones seeks a $540,000,000 award as a relator

in a qui tam action

pursuant to section 3730(d) of the False claims Act. onJuly3l,2011,Plaintiff filedaqg! tam
action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against "7 Major Banks
and severai smaller ones" to "enforce provisions of repayment of taxpayer funds under the
Troubled Assets Recovery Program ("TARP')1." Compl. 5. The District Court dismissed this
qui tam action because a relator may not proceed plq se in a qu! tam action, and because Plaintiff
failed to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss
2.

Plaintiff has the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction in this Court. See
Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv. ,846 F.2d746,748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The Court must
dismiss the action if it finds subject-matter jurisdiction to be lacking. Adair v. United States, 497
F.3d 1244, 1251 (Fed. Cir.2007). The Court assurnes all factual allegations as true, and will
construe the complaint in a manner most favorable to the Plaintiff when ruling on a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule t2(bx1). Penninqron Seed. Inc. 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) (quoting Haines v.

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). However, p1s se plaintifl's still bear the burden of
establishing the Court's jurisdiction, and must do so by a preponderance of ihe evidence. See
Revnolds, 846 F.2d at 748; Tindle v. United States, 56 Fed. Cl. 337 ,341 (2003).
The False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. $$ 3729 et. seq., imposes civil penalties and treble
damages on those who have knowingly submitted false or fraudulent claims to the Government,
and allows private individuals, known as relators, to bring a gui tam action on behalf of the
Govemment when the relator possesses information that a false or fraudulent claim has been
submitted. capelouto v. Uniled States,99 Fed. C\.682,690 (2011). An individual "may bring a
civil action for a violation of section 3729 for the person and for the United States Govemment.
The action shall be brought in the name of the Govemment." 31 U S.C. $ 3730(b) (2012).
However, jurisdiction over qui tam actions, including awards to relators, lies exclusively
in the district courts. See id. at $ 3732(a) ("Any action under section 3730 may be brought in
any judicial district in which rhe defendant . . . [is] found, resides, [or] transacts business . . . .");
see also LeBlanc v. unired States, 50 F.3d 1025, l03 l (Fed. cir. 1 995) (finding thal oui tam suits
,,may only be heard in the district courts"); Schweitzer v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 592,595-96
(2008).
Therefore, claims for the recovery ofan award to a relator pursuant to li 3730 of the False
Claims Act may only be heard in the district courts, despite being claims fbr money damages
against the Government, which normally fall within the jurisdictional purview of this Court.
Meschkow v. Unired Stares, 109 Fed. CL 637,6a5 Q013); Giles v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl.
335,336-37 (2006); see eenerallv 28 U.S.C. $ 1a91(a) (2012).

Conclusion
Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to dismiss this
action for lack ofjurisdiction.