OR%lNAL
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. l6-1302C F|LED
Filed October 17, 2016
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UCT 1 7 2016
l U.s. couat or=
MILLIE HOWARD, ) FEDEF{AL CLA!N|S
)
Plaintiff, )
) Pro Se; Rule 12(h)(3), Subject-Matter
v. ) Jurisdiction.
)
TI-IE UNITED STATES, )
)
Defendant. )
)
Millie Howard, NeW Richmond, OH, plaintiff pro se.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRIGGSBY, Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffpro se, Millie Howard, brought this action challenging the decision of the United
States District Court for the Southem District of Ohio to dismiss her claim for retirement benefits
under the Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U.S.C. § 231, et seq. See generally Compl. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court DISMISSES plaintiff s claim for lacl< of subject-matter jurisdiction,
pursuant to Rule l2(h)(3) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”).
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND]
A. Factual And Procedural Background
Plaintiffpr'o se, Millie Howard, commenced this action on October 6, 2016, challenging the
decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to dismiss her claim
l The facts recited in this Memorandum Opinion and Order are taken from plaintiffs complaint (“Compl.”);
plaintiff’s complaint before the United States District Coul't for the Southel'n District of Ohio (“Complaint,
Howard v. Unitea' States R.R. Refire)r?ent Board, No. 15-679 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 19, 2015)”); and the Opinion
and Order issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, dated September 15,
2016 (“Opinion and Order, Howard v. Unilea' States R.R. Retirenrent Boam', No. l5-679 (S.D. Ohio Sept. lS,
2016)”).
for retirement benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act. See generally Compl. In the complaint,
plaintiff alleges that she is entitled to receive a Widow annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act,
due to her deceased husband’s employment With the Norfolk Southern Railroad. Id. at l. Plaintiff
further alleges that the United States Railroad Retirement Board (“USRRB”) improperly denied her
claim for these benefits and that she Was “fraudulently transferred to the Social Security
Administration.” ld.
Prior to commencing this action, plaintiff filed litigation in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio challenging the USRRB’s decision to deny her benefits
Complaint, Howard v. United States R.R. Relz`remenr Boara', No, 15-679 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 19, 2015).
The district court dismissed plaintiffs claim on September 15, 2016. Opinion and Order, Hon)ard
v. United Srates R.R. Retiremenf Boam', No. 15-679 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 15, 2016). ln addition, the
district court denied plaintiff s motion to transfer the case to this Court on September 15, 2016. ]d.
ln this litigation, plaintiff seeks a review of the district court’s decisions to dismiss her claim
and to deny her motion to transfer. Compl. at 2. Plaintiff also requests that the Court appoint a
special prosecutor “to examine the merits, the record, documentary evidence, and applicable
statutory law and render a decision.” Ia’.
III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A. Pr'o Se Litigants
Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter pro se, Without the benefit of counsel And so, the
Court applies the pleadings requirements leniently. Berz`ont v. GTE Labs., Inc., 535 F. App’x 919,
925~26 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing McZeal v. Sprz`nl Nexrel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir.
2007)). When determining Whether a complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff is sufficient to survive a
motion to dismiss, this Court affords more leeway under the rules to pro se plaintiffs than plaintiffs
Who are represented by counsel. See Haines v. Keme)', 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holding that pro
se complaints, “however inartfully pleaded,” are held to “less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers”); Matthews v. Um`ted States, 750 F.3d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
But, there “is no duty on the part of the trial court to create a claim Which [the plaintiff| has not
spelled out in his pleadings.” Lengen v. Um`fed Srares, lOO Fed. Cl. 317, 328 (2011) (bracl