In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 18~1391C
(Filed: April 5, 20]9)
NOT FOR PUBLICATI()N
Pro Se Complaint; Dismissal for Lael< of
Subj ect Matter Jurisdiction or, in the
Alternative, for F ailure to Statc a Claim
upon Which Relief Can Be Granted; RCFC
lZ(b)(l); RCFC lZ(b)(6); l\/liscellaneous
Relicf Requcsted Regarding the lnternal
Revenue Service; Copyright Infringement
Claim.
ROBERT HURFORD HALE,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
\-_/\_/\\-_/\-../\-'/\-./\.,/\»_/\_/\_/\_/
Robert Hurford l~lale, Henderson, NV, pro se.
Carrie Rosato, Trial Attorney, With Whom were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney
General, Gary L. Hausken, Director, United States Department of Justicc, Commercial
Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Washington, DC. Scott Bolden, of counscl.
OPINION
CAMPBELL~SMITH, Judge.
This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint,
brought under Rules lZ(b)(l) and lZ(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court of
Federal Claims (RCFC). This motion has been fully briefed, as follows: defendant’s
motion, ECF No. 7; plaintiff’s response, ECF No. 9; and, defendant’s reply, ECF No. l().l
The court also has before it plaintiff s motion to proceed in forma pauperis See ECF No.
4. Both motions arc ripe for a ruling. For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s
motion is GRANTED, and plaintiff s motion is DENIED as moot.
l All document references and page citations are to the electronic record preserved
in the court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files (Cl\/l/ECF) system.
l. Bacl