' FlLED
ORl%lNAL
In the United States Court of Federafg&cjl¢ =i=
(6) All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value
furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled
substance or listed chemical in violation of this subchapter, ali proceeds
traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, negotiable instiuments, and
securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this
subchapter.
21 U.s.C. § 881(&)(6).
4 “[F]or the purposes of [a] motion to dismiss [the court] must take ail the factual allegations
in the complaint as true, [but] We are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a
factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). The July 11, 2016 Complaint
alleges that “the [f]ederal laws that govern [this] forfeiture action . . . are [] 19 U.S.C. §§ 1602-
1621.” Compl. at l. As a matter of law, however, the statutes in this case are provided by 18
U.S.C. 981(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). Compiaint at 1[2, United Sfafes v. $48,880.00, More
or Less, In U.S. Currency, No. 15-364 (W.D. TeX. Dec. 11, 2015) (“This is a civil forfeiture action
in rem brought against the Respondent Property . . . pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 98l(a)(l) and 21
U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).”).
5 The Innocent Owner Defense states that, “[a]n innocent owner’s interest in property shall
not be forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute. The claimant shall have the burden of proving
that the claimant is an innocent owner by a preponderance of the evidence.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(d)(1).
Motion To Proceed fn Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 3. On August 3, 2016, the court granted
Plaintiff" s Motion To Proceed fn Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 5.
On September 9, 2016, the Government filed a l\/lotion To Dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”)
lZ(b)(l) (“Gov’t Mot.”). Plaintiff’s Response Was due on October li, 2016. But, as of
December 2, 2016, Plaintiff did not file any response or objection On December 2, 2016, the
court issued an Order instructing Plaintiff to show cause Why this case should not be dismissed for
failure to prosecute, pursuant to RCFC 4l(b). ECF No. 7. That same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion
For Extension Of Time To File A Response. ECF No. 8. On December 6, 2016, the court granted
that motion. ECF No. 9.
On January 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Response to the December 2, 2016 Show Cause Order
(ECF No. 10), and a Response to the Governrnent’s September 9, 2016 Motion 'l`o Dismiss and
Motion F or Leave To Amend The Complaint (“Pl. Resp.”). On January 17, 201 7, the Government
filed a Reply (“Gov’t Reply”).
III. DISCUSSION.
A. Jurisdiction.
The United States Court of Federal Ciaims has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act,
28 U.S.C. § 1491, “to lender judgment upon 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 liquidated or unliquidated
damages in cases not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The Tucker Act, however, is “a
jurisdictional statute; it does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States
for money damages . . . {T]he Act merely confers jurisdiction upon [the United States Court of
Federal Claims] Whenever the substantive right exists.” United Stares v. Testcm, 424 U.S. 392,
398 (1976).
To pursue a substantive right under the Tucl