Filing 5

UNREPORTED Order granting 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Victor J. Wolski. (dls) Service on parties made. (Plaintiff served via certified mail; Article No. 7017 1450 0000 1346 0348)

Download PDF
ORflGINAL In At @nfft! $ltutts @ourt of ftltrul No. 18-25C (Filed January 11, 2018) NOT FOR PUBLICATION @tstms FILED JAN II zOIE U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ****************** MITCHELL T. TAEBEL, Plaintifl THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ****************** ORDER OnDecember2T,20lT,plaintiff,MitchellT'Taebel'filedacursory'oneparagraph complaint. Compl. In this com,plaint,. Mr' Taebel contends that an preamble to the orr"rt'.oua interpretation ofihe "general Welfare" reference in the contrary to U.S. Constitution has resulted in the U.S. Department of Justice acting of the constituti on. Id,. In particular, Mr. Taebel objects to the enforcement and federal criminal laws other than those enumerated in the constitution, maintains that such activity results in an unconstitutional expense of fundspr"r"-.Hv violating the Tenth Amendment to the u.s. constitution. see id. As is frequently the case when non-lawyers represent themselves in proceedings brought in our court, Mr. Taebel seems to misunderstand the jurisdictio-n that congress has given us. our court has not been empowered to opine i""""'vmatterinwhichawould-belitigantdisagreeswiththefederal government,sinterpretationofaconstitutionalprovision.UndertheTuckerAct,28 il.s.c. s 1ag1(aX1), our jurisdiction is restricted to claims for money damages, and ,.q"1""" ,,the identification of a money-mandating law which was allegedly violated (Jnited States, I27 Fed. CI. 308, 312 (Fed. by the fecteral government." Stonwyih u. Li. zorol @itiig united' states u' Mitchett,463 u.s. 206,216-17 (1983))' For j,r.i*di.tion to rest on the violation of a constitutional provision, that provision must ?0r? 1,q50 0000 llqb 0lq0 mandate that money be paid to particular individuals if violated. See Smith u (Jnited States,709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("To be cognizable under the Tucker Act, the claim must be for money damages against the United States, and the substantive law must be money-mandating."); LeBlanc u. United Stotes, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing rJnited States u' Testan, 424rJ'S' 392, 398 (1976)); see also Eastport S. S. Corp. u. [Jnited States, 372 F.2d 1002' 1007 (Ct' CI' 1967) (explaining that our predecessor did not have jurisdiction over "every clarm involving or invoking the Constitution")' Not only has Mr. Taebel failed to allege that any money damages are owed him by the federal government, but he fails to explain how the only constitutional provision he maintains was violated-namely, the Tenth Amendment---can be interpreted as mandating the payment of money to anyone. The text ofthe Tenth Amendment says nothing about the payment of money, as our court has frequently held. See, e.g., Milgroonl u. United States, :r22Fed CI' 779, 800 (Fed' CI' 2015) (explaining ihat the Tenth Amendment is not a money-mandating provision of the Constitution). Subject-matterjurisdictionmayberaisedbythepartiesatanytime'orby (Fed. cir. 2004). the court iua sponte. Folden u. (Jnited. states,379 F.3d 1344, 1354 claims Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the united states court of Federal (RCFC), "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jrrrisalctlon, the court must dismiss the action." When a court undertakes this and ietermination, "the allegations stated in the complaint are taken as true jrr.i"ai*lott is decided on the face of the pleadings'" Folden' 379 F'3d at 1354 (citation omitted). constitutional As Mr. Taebel',s complaint has failed to base his claim on a p.o'oisionwhichwouldentitlehimtoanawardofcompensationwerehisclaim i""."*ri"f, our court lacks the authority to hear the matter. See Wahahis u. United for stot"r, zti ct. cI. 1018, 1018-19 (197g). The case is therefore DISMISSED iu"t oi j.trirai"tion per RCFC 12(h)(3)' Because Mr' Taebel appears to meet the to to proceed in forma pauperis, see FCF No' 4' his motion for Ieave paid. The p.oc""d in forma pauperis is GRANTbO, and thus no filing fee need be Clerk is directed to close this case' ."q"i."-""* IT IS SO ORDERED.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?