CLOUD v. USA

Filing 14

Order of Dismissal granting 11 Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) and (6). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Hodges, Jr. (ac7) Service on parties made.

@ni&! 9tates @ourt of fslsral €himg
No. l8-335
Filed: October 4, 201 8

SHARON CLOUD

Plaintiff,
v.

UNITED STATES OF AMEzuCA,
Defendant.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

HODGES, Senior Judge.

Sharon Cloud, a pro se plaintiff, seeks relief in this court for her alleged eviction
and removal'from land that she inherited from her Native American ancestors. In response,
the Govemment moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to
state a claim upon which reliefcan be granted.

For the following reasons, we grant defendant's motions.

BACKGROUND

Ms. Cloud's Complaint alleges that she was evicted from her land, apparently
related to the "1845 incorporation of the Republic of Texas into the United States of
America." Compl. 2. The Complaint states that she seeks liquidated damages, punitive
damages, and equitable remedies. Compl. 5. Defendant moved to dismiss her Complaint
in Mav.2018.

?01s utlqE

0E11l,

1,3i3 3853

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint the following month rvherein she now
highlights the fact that she is a Native American who inherited land from her ancestors.r In
support of her claim, Ms. Cloud refers to the "federal Indian trust responsibility," which
she contends is a "legal obligation under which the United States has charged itself with
moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust toward Indian tribes." Am. Compl.
2. More specifically, she alleges that the Government has an obligation to protect tribal
treaty rights, lands, and assets and asks that the court "carry out the mandates of federal
law that is owed to [her]." Am. Compl. 4.

In July 2018, the Government moved to dismiss plaintiff s Amended Complaint for
lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Responding to that motion, Ms. Cloud stated that she held "[a]llodial title to land" and that
the Land Patent was issued to her ancestor in 1845; she accepted the assignment in 2017.
Defendant points out in its reply that Ms. Cloud's scant factual assertions or legal analysis
cannot serve to establish jurisdiction or confer to her any legal rights in this court.

DISCUSSION

The Government's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint must be granted for
the fbllowine reasons:

Rule 12(bX 1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

In deciding a Rule l2(b)(l) motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true all
undisputed facts asserted in a complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
non-moving party. See Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States,659 F.3d 1159, 1163
(Fed. Cir. 201 I ).

The Tucker Act is this court's primary jurisdictional statute. That Act does not of
itselfcreate a cause ofaction, however. RHI Holdings, Inc. v. United States,142 F.3d 1459,
l46l (Fed. cir. 1998). A plaintiff proceeding under the Tucker Act must identify a separate

Ms. Cloud has attached to her Amended Complaint, a "Declaration of Land Patent," which
states that her "Homestead" is Houston, Texas, and that she is "[t]he Assignee of the
Original Land Patent." Am. Compl. 5.

-2-

source of substantive law that creates the right to money damages to invoke the court's
jurisdiction over a claim. Greenlee Cnty., Ariz.v. United States,487 F.3d 871, 875 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). See (Jnited States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976).

The Indian Tucker Act authorizes claims by Native American tribes against the
Govemment and grants jurisdiction to this court over claims that otherwise would be
cognizable if the claimant were not an Indian tribe. 28 U.S.C. $ 1505. Like the Tucker Act,
however, the Indian Tucker Act, requires that a plaintiff identi$ a separate source of law
to authorize recovery.

Such a claim cannot rest solely on the general trust relationship that exists between
the Government and Native American tribes, however; trust obligations of the United
States are established and govemed by statute rather than by the common law. See United
States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation,564 U.S. 162, 165 (2011).

In any event, individual Native Americans, may not bring claims under the Indian
Tucker Act. See Fields v. (Jnited States,423 F.2d 380, 383 (1970) (explaining that only a
tribe, band, or other identifiable group of American Indians may bring a claim under the
Indian Tucker Act).

Claims bypro se plaintiffs are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by
attorneys, but a Complaint's lack ofclarity or a litigant's naivetd cannot create jurisdiction
in this court where none otherwise exists. Ms. Cloud's inability to establish a claim for
which we have jurisdiction is fatal to her Complainl. See Bernard v. United States, 59 Fed.
Cl. 497,500 (2004) (citation omitted).

Not only does Ms. Cloud fail to identiff herself as representing a tribe, but also she
does not identify a constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision mandating payment of
monetary damages. See id. at 502 (dismissing plaintiff s pro se claim for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction). For these reasons, we cannot entertain the allegations ofher Amended
Complaint.2

'This court generally is not authorized '.:ro order equitable relief such as specific

performance, a declaratory judgment, or an injunction." Smalls v. United States,87 Fed.
Cl. 300, 307 (2009) (citation omitted). This would prevent us from granting plaintiff title
to the land in question, if that is the nature of Ms. Cloud's requests. Only as an adiunct to
-J-

II.

Rule 12(bX6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

Ms. Cloud's Amended Complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. A Rule 12(bX6) motion to dismiss will be granted if the facts asserted in a
complaint do not entitle the plaintiff to a legal rernedy. Lindsay v. United States, 295 F.3d
1252, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Pursuant to Rule 8(aX2) of the RCFC, a complaint must
contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief." Ms. Cloud's Amended Complaint asks only that the court "carry out the mandates
of federal law that is owed to [her]." Aside from that vague request, Ms. Cloud does not
provide guidance to assist the court in understanding what she seeks, much less a cause of
action.

CONCLUSION
Defendant's Motions to Dismiss Ms. Cloud's Amended Complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim are GRANTED. The Clerk of
Court will DISMISS plaintiff s' Amended Complaint. No costs,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

our hnding that a plaintiff is entitled to relief, and"'[t]o provide an entire remedy and to
complete the reliefafforded by the judgment, the court may, as an incident ofand collateral
to any such judgment" order equitable relief'. See Pellegrini v United States, 103 Fed. Cl.
47, 53 (2012) (quoting 28 U.S.C. $ 1a9l(aX2) (2006)); see also McKuhn v. United States,
No. l8-107C, 2018 WL 2126909, at *3 (Fed. Cl. May 9,2018) (stating that having failed
to identify a statute mandating payment of monetary damages, the plaintiff s claim for
equitable remedies could not be entertained by the court).

-4-