ffii],n:i
fi\uui ru,qL
@nitoU Stute B {.outt otfrlrrul @luims
No. l8-0310C
Filed: March 20,2018 FILED
MAR 2 0 2018
SUAMINKA CONERLY. U.S. COURT OF
FEDERAL CIAIMS
Plaintiff,
Pro Se; Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction; In Forma Pauperis
Application
'THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
ORDER
SMITH, Senior Judge
On February 27,2018, plaintiff, proceedingpro se, filed a complaint in this Court and
concunently filed an informa pauperis application seeking leave to proceed without paying the
Court filing fee. Plaintiff alleges that her civil rights were violated and is seeking $900 tdllion in
damages.
I. Plaintiff s Complaint
'l'his Court's jurisdictional grant is primarily defined by the Tucker Act, which provides
this Court the power "to render any judgment upon any claim against the United States founded
either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation ofan executive
department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States . . . in cases not
sounding in tort." 28 U.S.C. $ 1a91(a)(l). Although the Tucker Act expressly waives the
sovereign immunity ofthe United States against such claims, it "does not create any substantive
right enforceable against the United States for money damages." United States v. Testdn, 424
U.S.392,398 (1976). Rather, in order to fall within the scope ofthe Tucker Act, "a plaintiff
must identify a separate source ofsubstantive law that creates the right to money damages."
l'isher v. United States, 402 F .3d 1167 , 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc in relevant part).
"Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction
exists. . . ." Hertz Corp. v. Friend,559 U.S. 77,94 (2010). Ifthe Court lacks jurisdiction, it
cannot proceed with the action and must dismiss the case. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,546 U.S. 500,
514 (2006). Rule l2(h)(3) ofthe Rules of the United States Court ofFederal Claims ("RCFC")
provides: "Ifthe court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action." Pleadings from pro ^re plaintiffs are held to more lenient standards than
?[lb 30],0 0DD0 q3B8 '{q78
pleadings drafted by lawyers. I{ughes v. Rowe,449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); see also Ericl