FREEMAN v. USA

Filing 6

Order of Dismissal directing the Clerk to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and directing the Clerk to RETURN UNFILED , any further attempted filings, other than a properly filed Notice of Appeal. No costs. Signed by Judge Lynn J. Bush. (dls) Copy to parties.

0wnUintAt
llntbt @nitr!

grtg,tts @ourt of

ftiersl

@tafms

No. 15-1389 C
(Filed December 16, 201 5)
,k {< :& {.,1.

*,! * *

{<,1.

*

t< :B,k *(

{.

:1.

FILED

{. * 4. t<,1.

DEC 16

NEAPOLEON JWAN FREEMAN, SR., *

U.S, COURT OF

,f

Pro Se Plaintffi

2015

FEDERAL CTAIMS
'F

v.

THE LNITED STATES,

n-t-^,lqn1.l
lJcJ cr ao
*'t

16*'t<,t*'l

,k * *

,1.

'F

* ,F ,k * * :i *

ORDER
The court has before it plaintiff s p ro se complaint, filed November 1 6,
2015. Because this court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Freeman's claims, his suit
must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(hX3) of the Rules of the United States
Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). The reasons for this sua sponte dismissal are set
forth below,
The complaint filed by plaintiff Mr. Freeman is largely incoherent and
unpaginated. th. titl" of the complaint is "Motion for civil Action on Nazi
Order." Compl. at 1.
[Depirtment of Defense] Mediator Jan. l974Nov. 2015
representative sample of the complaint is as follows:

A

Plaintiff s complaint of Total Holocaust on (him and
wife) on Jan. 1974. . . ' [and] Petition for Civil Action
for personal injuries, negligence, damnation
r/ The couft notes that the United

SI

00'000'00

States is the only proper defendant in this court.

of Defense Therefore, although the handwritten complaint names "Nazi of Department
pentagon Mediato'r whom visited Broadway o/m./Jr. sch. Newark, NJ Jan. 19'14 World Smartest
has correctly
Van ie. contest: Awarded prize Total Hoiocaust" as defendant, the Clerk's Offrce
docketed this case as brought against the United States'

Damages is a step to medical needs (Prison
institution/not allowing all needed copies).

Id. at l-2. Much later in the complaint, the events of January 1974 are described
as occurring in a principal's office in Newark, New Jersey. Id. at 6.
On the final page of the complaint is a reference to a Congressional
Representative from New Jersey who has apparently not responded to Mr.
Freeman's letters as of November 2015. Id. at 8' Subsequently, in plaintiff s
response to the court's request for a completed application to proceed informa
pauperis, Mr. Freeman complains that he has had no response to his request to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for a refund or
reimbursement of filing fees that he has paid (or is paying) in connection with his
2014 appeal in that forum.2 Application to Proceed -Ir Forma Pauperis, at2'

Affording all reasonable inferences to the factual allegations in the
complaint and plaintiff s informa pauperis application, the complaint may present
claims relating to the actions of a Department of Defense employee in 1974,
conditions at the prison in which Mr. Freeman is incarcerated, the failure of a
member of Congress to respond to Mr. Freeman's letters, and/or the failure of the
fees
Federal circuit to respond io Mr. Freeman's correspondence regarding filing
in that forum. None of these allegations satisfies plaintifls burden to establish
that his suit is within the jurisdiction of this court. Reynolds v. Army & Air Force
Exch.*erv..846F.2d746,747-48(Fed.Cir.1988)'Indeed,althoughthe
complaint cites to one specific federal statute, 38 U'S'C' $ 4323 (2012)'that
court' See
statute confers jurisdiction on the United States district courts, not this
38 U.S.C. $ 4323(bX1).

Regarding the complaint's more general citation to the "Prisoner Litigation
Reform e"t or tsss," compl. at 1, or PLRA, this statute is not money-mandating
filing fees. see
so as to support jurisdiction for a claim seeking a refund of court
Dudley v. inited States, 61 Fed. Cl. 685, 687-89 (200a) (dismissing a PLRA

,/

previous case"'
Plaintiffls complaint in this case asserts that it is "not in connection to
which was dismissed
compl. at 1 , an apparent ieference to another suit plaintiff filed in this court
Sept' 19, 2013)
for lack ofjurisdiciion. See Freeman v. United States,No. 13-327C (Fed. Cl.
(order dismissin g case), aff' d, 568 F. App'x 892 (Fed Cir' 20 1 4)'

claim). This court also

has no review powers over the actions of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As to the other fragmentary allegations
of misdeeds contained in the complaint, the tortious conduct of either a federal
employee or a member of Congress does not give rise to a claim within this court's
jurisdiction. Shearin v. United States,992 F.2d 1195, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Finally, suits complaining of state prison conditions are not within this court's
jurisdiction. Hover v. United States,1l3 Fed. C1.295 (2013).
Although the complaint may express the frustration of plaintiff regarding
his circumstances, it does not contain "a nonfrivolous allegation that [the plaintiffl
is within the class of plaintiffs entitled to recover [from the United States] under
[a] money-mandating source" of lavt. Jan's Helicopter Serv,Inc, v. Fed. Aviation
Admin., 525 F .3d 1299, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2008)' Because Mr. Freeman has not
presented a nonfrivolous reference to a source of law supporting this court's
jurisdiction over his claims, his complaint must be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.3 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that

(1)TheClerk'sofficeisdirectedtoENTERfinaljudgmentinfavorof
defendant, DISMISSING the complaint for lack ofjurisdiction,
without prejudice;

(2)TheClerk'sofficeisdirectedtoRETUR]r{anyfuilherattempted

filings to plaintiff, UNFILED, other than a properly filed notice of
appeal; and

(3)

No costs.

J.B

3/ The court has considered transfer of this suit to another federal court, but declines to
that the claims in
do so because transfer is not in the interest ofjustice. There is no indication
claims, as best as they
this suit would proceed to a ruling the merits - instead, all of plaintiff s
grounds'
can be discerned, appear to be barred on jurisdictional or other