MARCUM v. USA

Filing 15

REPORTED ORDER DISMISSING CASE. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Loren A. Smith. (ajd) Service on parties made. (Main Document 15 replaced on 9/26/2024 to correct a typographical error) (aoc). Modified on 9/26/2024 (aoc). Plaintiff served via first class mail on 9/26/2024.

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 24-1175
Filed: September 25, 2024

RONALD MARCUM,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER

On July 31, 2024, pro se plaintiff, Mr. Ronald Marcum (“Mr. Marcum”), brought suit in
this Court against several judges presiding over other federal courts alleging they are “fraudulent
acting criminals operating under foreign owned corporate government.”1 See Complaint at 1,
ECF No. 1 [hereinafter Compl.] at 1. Mr. Marcum also alleges that he has been kidnapped by
officers of the State of Arkansas and wrongfully denied certain documents2 in connection to a
Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request. Id. at 1–2. Mr. Marcum seems to mount these
claims as a deprivation of his rights under color of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 and a
conspiracy against his rights in violation of 18 U.S.C § 241. Id. Mr. Marcum seeks release of
these documents as well as “$1 billion in lawful money gold” as relief. Id. at 3.
On August 8, 2024, believing it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over his claims, the
Court ordered Mr. Marcum to show cause as to why his case should not be dismissed pursuant to
Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) on or before September 30,
2024. See Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 5. On September 9, 2024, Mr. Marcum submitted a
letter to the Court which was construed and then filed as his response to the Order to Show
Cause. See Plaintiff’s Response to Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 12 [hereinafter Pl.’s Resp.].
Therein, Mr. Marcum merely lists additional allegations, almost identical to those plead in his

1

To the extent that the complaint may be construed to include any allegations of judicial misconduct, this
Court, pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(F) of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, would
still lack jurisdiction of such claims. See, e.g. Stewart v. United States, 166 Fed. Cl. 723, 726 (2023) (dismissing
plaintiff’s claims of judicial misconduct for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction).
2

The Court understands this documentation to include certain legal documents in connection with prior civil
and/or criminal cases involving Mr. Marcum, lawful oaths of office of certain government employees, and liability
insurance policy information. See Compl. at 1; Plaintiff’s Response to Order to Show Cause at 2.

1

complaint, instead of explaining how his claims invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. See generally
Pl.’s Resp.
The Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is primarily defined by the Tucker Act, which
authorizes the Court to entertain certain categories of claims “against the United States”—
namely, claims “founded . . . 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 damages in cases not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (emphasis added). The
Court “must dismiss [an] action” over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. R. Ct. Fed. Cl.
12(h)(3). Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the Court has jurisdiction over his
claims. See Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exchange Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Although pro se plaintiffs are given “leeway on procedural matters, such as pleading
requirements,” McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007), this
leniency does not lessen the plaintiff’s jurisdictional burden, Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Lab.,
812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The Court sua sponte concludes that Mr. Marcum’s allegations are not within its subjectmatter jurisdiction for three reasons.
First, the Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims under the federal
criminal code. See Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (dismissing
plaintiff’s claims of alleged violations of Title 18 of the criminal code). Mr. Marcum seems to
allege that certain acts by the State of Arkansas and government employees amount to a
deprivation of his rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 which are federal criminal
statutes. See Compl. at 2; see also Pl.’s Resp. at 3–4, 7. Nor are these criminal claims within the
Court’s jurisdiction as these statutes are not money-mandating sources of relief against the
United States. See Harris v. United States, 686 F. App’x 895, 899 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(unpublished) (noting that the Court of Federal Claim’s correctly held that it did not have
jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims under 18 U.S.C. § 242 on the ground that the statute does not
mandate money damages); see also Jones v. United States, 655 F. App’x 839, 840–41 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (unpublished) (affirming the Court of Federal Claim’s dismissal of claims under 18 U.S.C.
§§ 241 and 242 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction).
Second, the Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate Mr. Marcum’s civil claims
under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, as the federal district courts have
exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. See Treece v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 226, 232
(2010). In his show cause response, Mr. Marcum alleges that the denial of his FOIA requests
confer this Court’s jurisdiction and cites to 5 U.S.C. § 552. See Pl.’s Resp. at 4. Accordingly,
the Court lacks jurisdiction over these claims.
Finally, as to Mr. Marcum’s kidnapping claims, the Court does not have jurisdiction over
such claims as it lacks jurisdiction over claims sounding tort. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); see
also Bey v. United States, No. 22-1221, 2023 WL 2365708, at *1–2 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 6, 2023)
(dismissing plaintiff’s kidnapping claims against the State of Minnesota as such claims sound in
tort). To the extent that Mr. Marcum’s kidnapping claims asserts that the State of Arkansas
violated federal law, the Court still does not have jurisdiction over such claims as previously
2

discussed. See Jiron v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 190, 201 (2014). Moreover, Mr. Marcum’s
kidnapping claims are alleged against state—not federal— officials which are therefore not
claims against the United States and thus, not subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §
1491(a)(1).
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED, sua sponte,
pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/

Loren A. Smith

Loren A. Smith,
Senior Judge

3