llil@lilill In the Um'ted States Court of Federal Claims No. 18-1724C (Filed: December 19, 2018) (NOT TO BE PUBLISHED) ******************W******%******** ) WAYNE HALL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ) *****W****k***********k**********W Wayne Hall, pro se, Raleigh, NC. Melissa L. Baker, Trial Attomey, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. With her on the brief Were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and L. Misha Preheirn, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. OPINION AND ORI)ER LETTOW, Senior Judge. Pending before the court is a motion to dismiss filed by the United States (“the government”) pursuant to Rule lZ(b)(l) and lZ(b)(é) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (“Def.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 6. Because this court lacks subj ect~matter jurisdiction over the complaint and Mr. Hall has failed to state a claim for Which relief can be granted, the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint is GRANTED. BACKGROUND The overall gist of Mr. Hall’s complaint is that the “[S]tate of North Carolina failed to protect [hirn] from being defrauded and extorted by not acknowledging [his] right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Compl. at 2. This “failure” by North Carolina appears to arise from an “illegal[] foreclose[ure]” action instituted by MetLife and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank. Compl. at 2. The complaint alleges that the two private companies “conspired to defraud [him] of [his] land . . . and [did] not disclos[e] the contract to [hirn] Which [he] signed.” Compi. at 2. 7|]1? 1450 |][|C|[] LE|L+F= EE\'E\|J Mr. Hall claims that he was forced “through threat, duress, and coercion to turn over [his] land to Someone who claims to own [his] land with no factual evidence besides a deed.” Compl. at 2. Because of this, he seeks his “land back as well as the maxim[um] penalties allowed by laW.” Compl. at 2. ln prior litigation in this court, Mr. Hall alleged a variety of constitutional challenges against the United States for acts such as “l