0R!$[$\$At
lJr tllt @nitoD $ltstes @ourt of fe[trul @luimg
No. l5-549C
(Filed November 23, 2015)
FILED
Nov 2 3 2015
OLANAPO AD OLAJIDE, U.S. COURT OF
FEDERAL CLAIMS
Plaintiff, Pro Se; RCFC 12(bX1), Subject-Matter
Jurisdiction; RCFC 12(b)(6), Failure to
State a Claim; Implied-in-Fact Contract;
Fifth Amendment Takines.
THE I.INITED STATES,
Defbndant.
Olanapo Ad Olajide, Oakland, CA, Plaintiff pro se.
Vincent D. Phillips, Trial Attomey, Franklin E. ,yhite, -/r., Assistant Director, Robert E.
Kirschman, Jr., Director, Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRIGGSBY. Judee
I. INTRODUCTION
Pro se plaintiff, Olanapo ad Olajide, also known as Ronald Boyede Olajide, brought this
action seeking monetary damages and injunctive reliefagainst the United States, for an alleged
breach of contract and a takings without just compensation pwsuant to the Fifth Amendment of
the United States Constitution. The govemment has moved to dismiss plaintiff s complaint for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(l) and 12(bX6) ofthe Rules ofthe United States Court of
Federal Claims ('RCFC'). See generally Def. Mot. Plaintiif has also filed motions for a
preliminary injunction; for expedited ruling upon his motion for a preliminary injunction; for
entry of a default judgment; for a more definite statement; to strike plaintiff s response to
defendant's motion to dismiss; and two miscellaneous motions styled as "Motions for the Court
to Take Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts," and "Conected Motion for Court to Take Judicial
Notice of Adjudicative Facts" ("motions for miscellaneous relief'). See generally, Pl. Mot. for
Prelim. Inj.; Pl. Mot. to Expedite Ruling on Prelim. Inj.; Pl. Mot. for Entry of Default Judgment;
Pl. Mot. for Court to Take Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts; Pl. Conected Motion for Court
to Take Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts; Pl. Mot. for a More Definite Statement; Pl. Mot.
to Strike Response to Mot to Dismiss. For the reasons set forlh below, the Court (l) GRANTS
defendant's motion to dismiss and (2) DENIES as moot plaintiff s motions.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND'
A. Factual Background
Plaintiff pro se, Olanapo ad Olajide, became a United States citizen in 1999. See Compl.
at 3-4, Ex. C; Def. Mot. at2. On May 28, 2015, plaintiff filed a complaint seeking injuncttve
relief and monetary damages from the United States. See generally Compl
In his complaint, plaintiff appears to assert a breach of contract claim and a Fifth
Amendment takings claim against the United States. 1d. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that, on
April 20, 1985, he loaned the government "his family and given names (olajide, olanapo, ad,
Ronald, boyede), likeness and fingerprints." Id.ar3-4. PlaintifT further alleges that the
govemment "did cause the sale of [plaintiff s] aforesaid property in association with their chattel
paper for a social value unknown to the [plaintiffl." 1d.
Plaintiff also contends that he entered into an implied-in-fact contract with the United
States by virtue ofbecoming a United States citizen. SeeCompl.at4; Pl. Resp. IIat5. In this
regard, plaintiff maintains that the Constitution ofthe United States is a contract between him
and the government. Pl. Resp. IIat5. Plaintiff further maintains that under this contract, he is
entitled to compensation from the United States for any use of his name. Compl. at 2-4.
Plaintiff appears to allege that defendant defaulted on this contract by using plaintiffs name and
likeness on his certificate of citizenship and his social security card. Id. ar 4-5. In this regard,
plaintiffargues that the United States defaulted on this contract "on or about April twenty-
I The facts recounted in this Memorandum Opinion and Order are taken from plaintiffs complaint
("Compl. at _"), defendant's motion to dismiss ("Def. Mot. at plaintiff s response to defendant's
motion to dismiss, filed August 19, 2015 C'Pl. Resp. at plaintiff s second response to defendant's
II at
-"), defendant's reply and supplemental
motion to dismiss, filed September 10,2015 C'Pl. Resp.
-"), and
reply in support of its motion to dismiss ("Del Rep. at and
-"),
"Def. Supplemental Rep at-"). Unless
otherwise noted herein, the facts recited are undisputed.
-"
seventh in the year nineteen ninety and [o]n September twelfth in the year nineteen ninety" by
causing "the sale ofthe [plaintiffs] aforesaid propeny," and he demands the "full amount ofthe
value, profits, and rents of his property payable under the note and mortgage to be due." Id. at 4,
6.
Plaintiffalso appears to allege that defendant engaged in a takings in violation ofthe
Fifth Amendment. ,See Compl. at 5. In this regard, he alleges that "intangible property" has been
taken by the govemment for "public use without justly compensating" plaintiff. 1d. Specifically,
plaintiff maintains that the inclusion ofhis name on certain documents evidences a use ofhis
property without just compensation. Id. at 4-5.
Plaintiff requests that the Court enjoin the govemment from using his name, issue a writ
of mandamus to compel the government to compensate him "for the public use of his private
[t]hings," and to award plaintiff $999,999,999.00 in monetary damages. Id. at 5,7 . Plaintiff
also seeks an injunction preventing the government from subjecting him or his properties to
equitable liabilities, as well as an assignment to the United States ofany debts for which he is
currently respon sible. Id.at7.
B. Procedural Background
Plaintiff filed the complaint in this matter on May 28, 2015. See generally CompI. On
June 4, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction against the United States. See
generally Pl. Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
The government did not timely respond to plaintiff s motion for preliminary injunction.
Consequently, on July I , 201 5, plaintiff moved for an expedited ruling on his motion for
preliminary injunction. See generally PL Mot. to Expedite.
The government also did not file a timely response to plaintiff s complaint. On July 29,
2015, the govemment filed a motion for an enlargement of time, out of time, to file a motion to
dismiss, along with an attached motion to dismiss plaintiff s complaint pursuant to RCFC
12(bX1). See Def. Mot. for Enlargement of Time; Def. Mot. On July 29,2015, the Court
granted the government's motion for an enlargement of time and granted the govemment leave
to file its motion to dismiss. See Order Granting Mot. for Leave to File Out of Time. In
addition, the Court issued a Show Cause Order directing that the govemment explain why
defendant failed to meet the filing deadlines in this matter. ,See Show Cause Order, July 29,
2015.
On July 30, 2015, plaintiff moved for entry of a defaultjudgment against the United
States. Pl. Mot. forDef. Judg.; see a/so RCFC 55(a). OnJuly3l,20l5,thegovemmentfiledits
response to the Show Cause Order and its responses to plaintilf s motion for preliminary
injunction and plaintiff s motion for an expedited ruling on his motion for a preliminary
injunction. See generally Def. Resp. to Show Cause Order.
On August 12,2015, plaintiff filed, by leave ofthe Court, his reply to the government's
response to his motions for preliminary injunction and for an expedited ruling on the motion for
a preliminary injunction. See generally Pl. Resp. to Mot. for Prelim. Injunction. On August 13,
2015, plaintiff filed a miscellaneous motion styled as "Motion for Court to take Judicial Notice
of Adjudicative F acts." See generally Pl. Misc. Mot. for Court to Take Notice of Adjudicative
Facts. On August I 7, 2015, defendant filed a response to the motion for entry of default
judgment. See generally Mot. for Entry of Default Judgment.
On August 19,2015, plaintiff filed a response to defendant's motion to dismiss. See
generally Pl. Resp. Additionally, on August 24,2015, plaintiff filed a motion for a more definite
statement. See generally Pl. Mot. for a More Definite Statement. On August 26,2015, plaintiff
filed a motion to withdraw plaintiff s response to defendant's motion to dismiss, which the Court
interpreted to be a motion to strike plaintiffs response to defendant's motion to dismiss. See
generally Pl. Mot. to Strike. On August 28, 201 5, defendant filed its reply in support of its
motion to dismiss. See gen erally Def . Rep.
On September 4, 2015, the Court filed a show cause order directing plaintiffto state why,
in light of plaintiff s motion to strike his response to the govemment's motion to dismiss, this
action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with a court
order pursuant to RCFC 41(b). See Show Cause Order, Sept.4,2015. On September 10,2014,
plaintiff filed a response to the Court's September 4, 2015 Show Cause Order and a response to
defendant's motion to dismiss. See Def. Resp. to Show Cause Order; Pl. Resp. II. On
September 25,2015, defendant filed a supplemental reply to plaintiff s response to its motion to
dismiss. See Dei Supplemental Rep. Defendant's motion to dismiss having been fully briefed,
the Court addresses the pending motion.
III, JURISDICTION AND LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Pro Se Litigants
Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter pro se. The Court recognizes that parties proceeding
pro se are granted greater leeway than litigants represented by counsel. See Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519,520-21 (1972) (holding that pro se complaints are held to "less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"). Nonetheless, "[w]hile a court should be receptive to
pro se plaintiffs and assist them, justice is ill-served when ajurist crosses the line from hnder of
fact to advocate." Demes v. United States,52 Fed. Cl. 365,369 (2002). And so, while the Court
may excuse ambiguities in plaintiff s complaint, the Court does not excuse the complaint's
failures. See Henke v. United States,60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
In addition, this Court has long recognized that'1he leniency afforded to apro se litigant
with respect to mere formalities does not relieve the burden to meet jurisdictional requirements."
Minehan v. United States,75 Fed. CI.249,253 (2007). For this reason, a pro se plaintiff-like
any other plaintiff-must establish the Court's jurisdiction to consider his claim by a
preponderance of the evidence. Riles v. United States,93 Fed. Cl. 163, 165 (2010).
B. RCFC 12(bX1)
When deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court must
assume that all undisputed facts alleged in the complaint are true and must draw all reasonable
inferences in the non-movant's favor. See Ericl