MOHN v. USA

Filing 20

Order of Dismissal granting 14 Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams. (dls) Copy to parties. (USPS Tracking No. 9114 9014 9645 0594 5521 53)

[qF16\E*r F I

li I '-, ,.,^;itd,
lJntbe @nite! $.tates @ourt of Jfelerat @tsimg
No. 16-2llL
(Filed: August 3, 2016)

***r.*t

*******

r. r(

* * !t * * * * * * * *

FILED

ABIODUNMOHN,

AU6

Plaintiff,

-3

2016

U,S, COURT OF
FEDERAL CLAIMS

v.

THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

*

r. r.

*

rr

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

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 eranted.

Background'

Plaintiff nro se Abiodun Mohn is a United States citizen and resident of Florida.
Plaintiff alleges that his ancestors, Jesse, Betsy, and James Reese were enoneously enrolled as
Cherokee Freedmen rather than as full-blood Native Cherokees per the 1880 Authenticated
Cherokee Census. Compl.

6. Plaintiff

also alleges that multiple allotments of land belonging to

James and Jesse Reese were transferred from a restricted to an unrestricted status without the
approval of the Secretary of the Interior in violation of 25 U.S.C. 8l.2 Id. at 2. plaintiff claims
$

that he continues to be misled as to his ancestors' heritage, resulting in continued denial of a
Certificate of Indian Blood Degree C'CBID') and access to an Individual Indian Money accounr
on behalf of himself and his two minor daughters. Id. at l, 5.

'
This background is derived from Plaintiffs complaint and the attached exhibits. The
facts and allegations contained in Plaintiffs complaint are similar to those in the matter
dismissed by this court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on Jiir,e 22,2016. Mohn v. united
Slates, Nos. 15-321L and t5-409L (Fed. Cl. June22,2016). See Compt.2l_25,2SJ1.
'^. __ ^ ^ruiitirlcites rhe previous version of this
8l (1994) with 25 U.S.C. g 81 (2000).

statute in his complaint. compare 25

u.s.c.

$

!"di+m*"'f3is.I;q#g',?fts3J"

Plaintilf filed the instant action on February 10, 2016, and filed an amended complaint on
March 24,2016. Plaintiff identifies the following statutes as the bases for jurisdiction: the
Tucker Act and the Indian Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. $$ 1491 and 1505;25 U.S.C. $$ 81' 175' 177'
178, l80, 185, 201, 202,and2401;Ihe Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. $ 2412(dXtXa);
and the False claims Act, 31 u.s.c. $ 3730.j Plaintiff requests that the oil and gas leases,
..powerline contracts, royalty contracts, mortgages, conveyances, etc." affecting his ancestors'
appropriated land be deemed void, and that he recover "all monies given in consideration
thereof' pursuant to 25 U.S.C. $ 81. Id. at 4. However, this statute no longer provides for any
remedy, let alone the remedy that Plaintiff seeks - - a declaration that the contracts affecting his
ancestors' appropriated land are null and void and recovery of all money paid, with one half
going to Plaintiff and one half going to the United States Treasury. Plaintiff seeks $600,000 in
compensatory damages for the cost oflegal fees and litigation support costs. Id. at 9.
Discussion

Plaintiff has the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction in this Court. See
Revnolds v. Armv & Air Force Exch. Serv.,846F.2d746,'148 (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 assumes 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 l2(bXl). Pennington Seed. Inc. v. Produce Exch. No. 299,457 F.3d
1334, 1338 (Fed. Cir.2006).
The filings ofpro 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, pro se plaintiffs still bear the burden of
establishing the Court's jurisdiction, and must do so by a preponderance of the evidence. See
Revnolds, 846F.2d at 748; Tindle v. United States,56 Fed. Cl. 337, 341 (2003).
The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. $ 1491(a)(1) (2012), 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 no1
sounding in tort.

The Tucker Act is not money-mandating, but rather is a jurisdictional statute. United States v.
Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). To establish jurisdiction, a plaintiff must seek money
damages from a source of substantive law. "[T]he claimant must demonstrate that the source of
substantive law he relies upon 'can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the
Federal Government for the damages sustained."' United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206,216-

3

Plaintiff lists each of these statutes as "money-mandating statutes conferring
jurisdiction," however he appears to mainly rely on the False Claims Act and 25 U.S.C. $$ 81,
201, and 2401. See Compl. 1. Plaintiff also states he brings claims for violations of l5 U.S.C.
$$ 2.4-2.18, however no such provisions exist.

17 (1983) (quoting Testan, 424 U.S. at 400); see Jan's Helicopter Serv.. Inc. v. Fed. Aviation
Admin., 525 F .3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) C'tAl plaintiff must identif a separate source of
substantive law that creates the right to money damages.") (internal quotations omitted).

The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over PlaintifPs Claims

Plaintiff names the following Defendants: the Department of the Interior, Dawes
Commission Chairman Tams Bixby, Dawes Commissioners C. Breckinridge and Thomas B.
Needles, Allotment Clerk Homer Needles, and Regional Director of the Eastern Oklahoma
Region of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Eddie Streater. Am. Compl. 1. The only proper
defendant in this Court is the United States. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588
(1941) C'[I]f the relief sought is against others than the United States the suit as to them must be
ignored as beyond the jurisdiction ofthe court."); Del Rio v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 536, 539
(2009) (citing 28 u.S.C. $ 1491(a)(1)).

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 Govemment,
and allows private individuals, known as relators, to bring qui tam actions on behalf of the
Government when the relator possesses information that a false or fraudulent claim has been
submiued. 31 U.S.c. $ 3730(b) (2012); caoelouto v. United states,99 Fed. Cl. 682,690 (2011).
However, jurisdiction over qui tam actions, including awards to relators, lies exclusively in the
district courts. See 31 U.S.C. $ 3732(a) ('Any action under section 3730 may be brought in any
judicial district in which the defendant . . . [is] found, resides, [or] transacts business . . . ."); see
also LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that qui tam suits
"may only be heard in the district courts"); Meschkow v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl.637,645
(2013); Schweitzerv. United States,82 Fed. Cl.592,595-96 (2008).
Conclusion
Defendant's motion to dismiss is
action for lack of iurisdiction.

GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to dismiss this