Hastings v. United States

1

LESLIE R. HASTINGS, JR., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 22-cv-1705

United States Court of Federal Claims

March 8, 2023

Leslie R. Hastings, Jr., Lamesa, Texas, appearing pro se.

Laura Offenbacher Aradi, United States Department of Justice Washington, D.C., appearing for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ELENI M. ROUMEL, JUDGE

Plaintiff Leslie R. Hastings, Jr., appearing pro se, seeks redress against the United States for various claims including judicial misconduct, judicial bias, violation of 28 U.S.C. § 636, and alleged violations of his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. See Complaint (ECF No. 1) (Compl.) at 2-3.^[1]Presently before the Court is the United States' (Defendant's) Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (Rule(s)). ECF No. 16 (Mot.). Defendant argues this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. For the reasons stated below this Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3).

BACKGROUND

This case is the latest in a series of actions brought by Plaintiff - in the United States Court of Federal Claims and in other federal courts - concerning his imprisonment and related lawsuits. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed one such complaint, in which Plaintiff alleged that "he [wa]s wrongfully confined because of a frivolous civil case he filed," on February 1, 2021 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Hastings v. Hendrix, No. 6:20-cv-00118-C, 2021 WL 562185, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2021). On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) also found Plaintiff's claims frivolous and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution on April 16, 2021. Hastings v. Hendrix, et al., No. 21-10126, 2021 WL 3627252 (5th Cir. Apr. 16, 2021).

On May 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging he was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned by the Fifth Circuit for filing his previous action claiming wrongful imprisonment. Hastings v. United States No. 22-cv-531, ECF No. 1 at 2 (Fed. Cl. May 10, 2022) (stating Plaintiff "is currently being wrongfully imprisoned and convicted by the United States for civil cases filed . . . for wrongful imprisonment"). Plaintiff proceeded to file 19 different motions before the Court of Federal Claims dismissed Plaintiff's complaint on July 12, 2022. Hastings v. United States, No. 22-cv-531, 2022 WL 2679990 (Fed. Cl. July 12, 2022). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) affirmed the decision of the Court of Federal Claims on November 14, 2022. Hastings v. United States, No. 2022-2073, 2022 WL 16908624 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2022).

Plaintiff filed his Complaint (ECF No. 1) in the present case on November 14, 2022, bringing suit against the United States, the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.^[2] Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8), which this Court granted on December 14, 2022. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges myriad wrongdoing by both the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit in the handling of his prior case no. 22-cv-531. Compl. at 1-2. Plaintiff's allegations include claims of judicial misconduct, judicial bias, violation of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and violations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Compl. 1-3. As relief, Plaintiff requests "the termination of the U.S. Federal Government, and the legal system to be operated by the U.S. Military," to "be the President of the United States, to include all nations within the United States jurisdiction," and damages in the amount of $500 billion. Compl. at 3.

On December 8, 2022, before Defendant's deadline for responding to the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 9. Defendant subsequently filed a Motion to Stay Briefing on Motion for Summary Judgment Until After the Court Rules on the Defendant's Forthcoming Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13), which this Court granted on December 16, 2022 to allow Defendant the opportunity to first respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Stay Briefing on Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14). Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) on January 17, 2023, arguing this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claims. ECF No. 16. On January 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document styled as a Motion to Sever requesting the Court "sever[] the above-listed case number from all pending litigation." ECF No. 17 at 1 (emphasis in original). Following its approach to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, this Court stayed briefing on Plaintiff's Motion to Sever until after it ruled on Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss. Order Staying Briefing on Plaintiff's Motion to Sever (ECF No. 18).

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD

The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, provides this Court with 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 for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort." 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The Tucker Act serves as a waiver of sovereign immunity for "certain claims for monetary relief against the United States," but it does not create a right to relief itself. Estes Express Lines v. United States, 739 F.3d 689, 692 (Fed. Cir. 2014); United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212, 218 (1983). To establish a right to relief under the Tucker Act, a "substantive right must be found in some other source of law." Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 216; see Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[J]urisdiction under the Tucker Act requires the litigant to identify a substantive right for money damages against the United States separate from the Tucker Act itself."). The constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision must be "fairly . . . interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained." United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400 (1976) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, this Court's jurisdiction under the Tucker Act does not extend to "every claim invoking the Constitution, a federal statute, or a regulation." Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 216. Additionally, this Court's jurisdiction does not extend to cases against private parties or government employees in their individual capacities. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (discussing how the Court of Federal Claims' limited jurisdiction does not include relief "against others than the United States"); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("The Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over suits against the United States, not against individual federal officials."). This Court must dismiss claims outside its subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3).

In deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, this Court accepts all uncontroverted facts as true and construes the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Banks v. United States, 741 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Pixton v. B&B Plastics, Inc., 291 F.3d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Under Rule 10(c), a "copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is part of the pleading for all purposes." RCFC 10(c). Thus, on a motion to dismiss, this Court considers "documents incorporated into the complaint by reference[.]" Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); Rocky Mt. Helium, LLC v. United States, 841 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Tellabs, Inc., 551 U.S. at 322).

In considering a motion to dismiss, this Court must liberally construe a complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff because pro se complaints, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotations omitted); see also Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Although held to a less stringent standard, pro se plaintiffs must still prove by a preponderance of the evidence that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. See Curry v. United States, 787 Fed.Appx. 720, 722 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Kelley v. Dep't of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987). While a pro se complaint may include ambiguities, pro se filing status "does not excuse [] failures" on the merits. Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff's Complaint is difficult to decipher, but this Court understands it to bring constitutional, judicial misconduct and tortious discrimination claims against the United States. However, this Court must dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as this Court's jurisdiction does not extend to claims brought pursuant to constitutional amendments that are not money-mandating, to appellate review of past Court of Federal Claims or Federal Circuit actions, or to claims sounding in tort. This Court accordingly considers Plaintiff's Complaint to be frivolous and lacking a basis in law. As this is the third dismissal of a frivolous complaint brought by Plaintiff in federal court, Plaintiff shall be barred from proceeding in forma pauperis when bringing a civil...