TREADWAY v. USA

Filing 4

Order of Dismissal. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas C. Wheeler. (dls) Service on parties made. (Plaintiff served via certified mail; Article No. 7017 1450 0000 1346 4988)

OR[ffi$FJAL
lln tbt @nitu! $ltutts [.surt of /tlersl
No. 18-735C

FILED

(Filed: May 30, 2018)
)t :t :t

't

*. {.

@lufmg

t :t * * * * {{ !t * * * :} *< * :1. * t * '* :N * '1. * * * * * {. * * *

MAY 3 0 2018
U.S, COURT OF
FEDERAL CLAIMS

l.

PETER TREADWAY,

Plaintifl

THE UNITED STATES,
'f

Defendant.
*{(,t,t ** t * ****

'k

rr

**** **{.{.,t*** ****,1.***t r.*
DISMISSAL ORDER

WHEELER, Judge.

Plaintiff Peter Treadway filed a pro se complaint in this court against all tobacco
companies, including Philip Monis and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco company, for alleged acts
of wlllfut harm and constitutional violations. Mr. Treadway filed this complaint on behalf
of his fiiend, Ms. Mary Zaplinty. Pursuant to its inherent authority, the Court sua sponte
DIMISSES Mr. Treadway's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because he
neither alleges a claim against the United States nor identifies any separate source of
substantive law creating a right to monetary damages.
Background

justice for
on May 23,2018,Mr. Treadway filed a complaint in this court, seeking
his fricnd, Maiy Zaplinty. Compl. at 1. Mr. Treadway notes that he files this complaint as
Treadway's
a,,goo<1 Samaiitan; acting on Ms. Zaplinty's behalf. Id. According to Mr.
coriplaint, Ms. Zaplinty ii an avid smoker who has tried to quit smoking in the past. Id.
Oesiite her attempts to quit, Ms. Zaplinty has failed to do so and now suffers from
Compl. at l,3. Mr. Treadway alleges that tobacco companies add "drugs,
"-piyr.-u. poiion" to tobacco in order to make smoking addictive. Id. at 1-2. Mr.
chernicals, and
Treadway asserts that companies' knowingly adding harmful and addictive chemicals to

701,7 t q50 8000 13qb

rt

188

tobacco despite proven, negative effects is a constitutional violation. Id. at 4. Mr.
Treadway names Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and all tobacco
companies as defendants. Id. at l.
Discussion
Subject-matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any time by the court sua sponte.
See. e.g., Toohey v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 97, 98 (2012). When deciding whether
there is subject-matter jurisdiction, the court "accepts as true all uncontroverted factual
allegations in the complaint, and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."
Estes Exoress Lines v. United States, 7 39 F .3 d 689, 692 (Fed. Cir. 20 I 4). Although pro se
litigants are generally held to a lower standard in their pleadings, a pro se plaintiff must
still prove subject-matter jurisdiction by a prcponderance of thc evidence. Lengen v.
United States, 100 Fed. CL.3t7,328(2011).

Under the Tucker Act, the Court may hear 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 tiquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort'" 28 U.S.C. $
1a91 (a)( 1). The Tucker Act itself does not create a substantive cause of action. Rather,
for a claim to be cognizable under the Tucker Act, the plaintiff must identis a "separate
source ofsubstantive law that creates the right to money damages." Fisherv. United States,
402F .3d 1167 , 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The separate source ofsubstantive law is considered
money-mandating if it "can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation for damages
sustained as a result of the breach ofthe duties [it] impose[s]." Id. at 1173 (quotingUnited
States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206,217 (1983)).
This Court only has jurisdiction to entertain claims against the United States. 28
U.S.C. $ 1491(a)( l); United States v. Sherwood, 3 l2 U.S. 5 84, 588 ( 1941); Moore v. Public
Defenders Ofhce, 76 Fed. CL.617.,620 (2007) ("When a plaintiffs complaint names
private parties, or local, county, or state agencies, rather than federal agencies, this court
has no jurisdiction . . . ."); Pikulin v. United States,97 Fed. Cl.7l,75 (2011) ("It is well
settlcd that the United States is the only proper defendant in the Court of Federal Claims'").
United States as a defendant.
Instead, he has named private tobacco companies as the defendants in this case. Thus, Mr'
Treadway's complaint fails to meet the foundational jurisdictional requirement that the

Mr. Treadway

has not named any federal agency or the

ljnited States be the defendant.
Additionally, Mr. Treadway fails to identiff any separate source of substantive law
creating a right to monetary damages. In his complaint, Mr. Treadway mentions that the
named defendants have issued large payouts in similar actions, but he does not ask for

monetary relief; he also fails to identifu a money-mandating statute that would entitle him
to monetary relief. As such, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Treadway's claim.
Lastly, Mr. Treadway files this complaint on behalf of a friend, which is not allowed
under the Court's rules regarding pro se litigants. RCFC 83.1(aX3) states that an individual
may represent oneself or a member of one's immediate family but may not represent any
other person in any proceeding before this Court. Mr. Treadway files the complaint on
behalf of his friend, Ms. Zaplinty, and does not represent that Ms. Zaplinty is a member of
his immediate family; rather, Mr. Treadway explains that he is only a "good Samaritan."
'l'he Court rules do not allow for such a filing.
Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES Mr' Treadway's complaint
without prejudice for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction. The Clerk ofthe Court is directed
to enter judgment accordingly. No costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

iP,r,*C

lt?rL

THOMAS C. WHEELER
Judge