BANTUM et al v. USA

Filing 6

Order of Dismissal granting 5 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. (Plaintiff served via certified mail; Article No. 7012 3460 0001 7791 6947)

ORIG![\IAt
llntbe @nite! $.tutts @ourt ot:fe[ersL@Laims
No. l6-533C
(Filed : Septemb er 26, 20161

** ****

* * * * * * **********

** *

JEMILL CHARMAINE BANTUM,

"t

FILED

't

sEP 2 6

ut., ;

*

20t6

U.S. COURT OF
FEDERAL CLAIMS

Plaintiffs,
v.

THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
*****

***t

***.1

******

* ******

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WILLIAMS,

Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint.
For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motion is granted.
Backqround
Plaintiffs pro se Jemill Charmaine Bantum, et al., are residents of Philadelphia County in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Compl. 1-4. Plaintiffs allege that the Commonwealth, and
a number of commonwealth govemment entities, banks, and individuals violated their state and
federal civil rights and have taken their property through foreclosure actions. Id. at 4-15.
Plaintiffs filed suit in this Court on April 29, 2016, seeking $60,000,000,000 in gold and
injunctive relief. Id. at 36, Attach. 1 at 21.
Discussion

Plaintiff must first establish subject-matter jurisdiction before the Court may proceed to
the merits of the action. Hardie v. United States, 367 F.3d 1288, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The
Cout must dismiss the action if subject-matter jurisdiction is found 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(b)(1). Pennineton Seed. Inc. v. Produce Exch. No.
299,457 F.3d 1334, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

?014 3qh0 [00],7?11,

h1+?

The frlings of plq 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.

Kemer, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). However, p1q se plaintiffs still bear the burden of
establishing the Court's jurisdiction, and must do so by a preponderance of the evidence. See
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 Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. $

la9l(a)(l) (2012), provides that this Court

shall have jurisdiction to render judgrnent upon any claim against the United
States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any
regulation of an executive deparftnent, or upon any express or implied contract
with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not
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 under 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 Govemment for the damages sustained.
United States v. Mitchell,463 U.S. 206.21617 (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) ('[A] plaintiff must identifu a separate source of
substantive law that creates the right to money damages.") (intemal quotations omitted).

"'

Plaintiffs name 46 different entities and individuals as Defendants, including the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Govemor of Pennsylvania, the First Judicial District of
Philadelphi4 the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphi4 the City of Philadelphi4 Wells Fargo
Bank, and a number of other state govemment officials, law firms, banks, and mortgage groups.
Compl. 4-13. The only proper defendant in this Court is the United States. United States v.
Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (19a1) ("[I]f the relief sought is against others than the United
States the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court."); Berdick v.
United States, 612 F.2d,533, 536 (Ct. Cl. 1979). As Plaintiffs have not challenged any action by
the United States, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiffs rely on 16 statutes, as well as the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Fourteenth
Amendments. This Court has jurisdiction over takings claims pursuant to the Fifth Amendment,
which requires compensation for property taken for public use. However, because Plaintiffs
have not alleged that their property was taken for any public use, they have failed to state a
takings claim upon which relief can be granted.

This Court lacks jurisdiction over claims brought under the Fourth and Seventh
Amendments and under the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995); LaChance v. United States, 15
Cl.Cr. 127,130(1988); Abbasv. United States,124Fed.Cl.46,55-56 (2015). Plaintiffs invoke
of criminal provisions of title 18 of the United States Code, the 1871 Civil Rights Act,
and the Sherman Antitrust Act, but this Court lacks jurisdiction over such statutory claims. See
Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378,379 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (stating that this Court does not have
jurisdiction over criminal matters); Buck v. United States, No. 1l-209C, 201I WL 2633624, at
a number

*3 (Fed. Cl. July 6, 2011) (finding that jurisdiction over civil rights claims lies exclusively in the
district courts); Hufford v. United States. 87 Fed. Cl. 696,703 (2009) (stating thatjurisdiction
over claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. $$ 1-7, is vested solely in the district
courts).

Finally, to the extent Plaintiffs purport to bring suit on behalf of the United States against
the named Defendants, this Court lacks jurisdiction as qg! tam suits may only be brought in the
district courts. 3l U.S.C. $ 3732(a) (2012); see also LeBlanc. 50 F.3d at l03l; Schweitzer v.
United States. 82 Fed. Cl. 592,595-96 (2008).

Conclusion
Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk of Coud is dir€cted to dismiss
this action.
{