Hale v. United States

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