WARREN v. USA

Filing 8

UNREPORTED ORDER Denying as Moot 4 Motion to proceed as pro se; Denying as Moot 5 Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying as moot 6 Motion for Extension of Time. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink. U.S. Certified Mail Tracking# 7017 1450 0000 1346 0591.(vds) Copy to parties.

ORIGh~AL
3Jn tbe Wniteb ~tates ~ourt of jfeberal ~Iaims
No. 17- 1784C
(Filed: December 6, 2017)

FILED
DEC - 6 2017

* ** ** ** ** ** *** * *** ****
KENT THOMAS WARREN,

U.S. COURT OF

FEDERAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff,

v.
THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

**** ** **** ** ***** ** ***
ORDER
Plaintiff, appearingpro se, filed his complaint, a motion for leave to
continue as a pro se litigant, and a motion for summary judgment on
November 13, 2017. 1 On December 1, 2017, defendant moved for an
extension of time to respond to plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff opposes that request. We need not reach the latter motions, however,
because it is clear on the face of the complaint that plaintiff has failed to plead
a claim over which this court has jurisdiction.
Although the complaint and attachments are voluminous, plaintiff has
alleged, in essence, two claims. The first is a claim that the United States
Department of Education has improperly considered his federa l student loans
in default in violation of federal statutes and regulations. The second claim is
that various federal regulations have discriminated against him in violation of

1

Plaintiffs motion to proceed pro se is not a request for waiver of the
filing fee, which has already been paid. This court's rules explicitly allow for
a plaintiff to proceed without counsel without court permission. That motion
is thus denied as moot.

7017 14 50 DODD 1346 059 1

/

the United States Constitution to prevent his working as a licensed primary or
secondary education teacher. He seeks discharge of his student loans and
$376,628,938.80 in monetary damages for lost teaching wages and the value
his time, since his early childhood, that he alleges should have qualified as
"professional development" under federal regulations. 2 Why it is that the
federal government ought to reimburse him for that time is unclear in the
complaint.
The United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over "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." 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)
(2012). A complaint must thus identify a constitutional, statutory, regulatory,
or contractual provision that can be fairly read to mandate the payment of
money by the United States to that individual for the breach of that provision.
See Mitchell v. United States, 463 U.S. 206, 217 (1983 ). Plaintiff has not done
so here.
Whether the Department of Education has followed applicable law and
regulation in finding Mr. Warren's student loans to have been defaulted on is
not a question cognizable under the Tucker Act. Plaintiff does not identify a
statute that can be fairly read to authorize money damages for the actions taken
by the Department of Education nor has plaintiff alleged any pecuniary harm
as a result of the department's actions. 3 These allegations are outside of our
jurisdiction.
Similarly, the claim for damages resulting from plaintiffs inability to
work as a licensed primary or secondary teacher is outside of our jurisdiction.
Plaintiff has not identified a substantive source of federal law that could be
2

Plaintiff also asks for a variety of other injunctive relief regarding
educational practices in the United States, none of which we have jurisdiction
over.
3

It appears from the attachments to the complaint that the review
process for plaintiffs loans is still ongoing at the Department of Education.
The complaint alleges neither a wage garnishment nor offset against plaintiffs
federal tax return by the Department of Education.
2

. 'I

enforced for money damages relating to this claim. In this regard, plaintiff
also alleges thatthe federal government denied him employment opportunities
by not recognizing his life experience that ought to have qualified as education
in lieu of formal training and degrees. He further avers that federal regulations
allow foreign nationals to qualify for employment through the use specialized
experience instead of formal degrees or training. This he argues is a violation
of his constitutional rights as an American citizen. None of these allegations
identify a source of federal law that mandates the payment of money for their
violation. 4
The conclusion is thus inescapable that the complaint must be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 12(h) of this court's rules obligates the court to
dismiss an action at any time, even sua sponte, if it determines that it lacks
jursidiction. Accordingly, the following is ordered:
1. Plaintiffs motion to proceed prose is denied as moot.
2. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied as moot.
3. Defendant's motion for an extension of time is denied as moot.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss the complaint for lack of
jmfadklion '"' '"'" judgmont ~z:::

A·~

ERIC G. BRUGGINK
Senior Judge

4

Plaintiffs complaint is replete with citations to the Constitution.
Other than the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, however, plaintiff has
not identified a money-mandating provision of the Constitution. See generally
LeB!anc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (explaining that
neither the Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments nor
other clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment mandated the payment of money
by the government). Further, citations to the Takings Clause are unavailing
because the complaint does not identify a valid property right taken by the
federal government. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment is not implicated, and
the complaint's bare citations to it are insufficient to allege a claim over which
this court has jurisdiction.
3