' ORlGlNAL
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 16-1136C (Pro Se)
(Filed: Apri126, 2017)
) Keywords: Pro Se Complaint; Asset
JEFFREY BROWN, ) Forfeiture; Rules of the Court of
) Federal Claims lZ(b)(l); Subject
Plaintiff, ) Matter Jurisdiction.
V_ § F|LED
)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) APR 2 6 2017
) us.couaToF
Defendant, ) FEDERAL CLAIMS
)
Jeji‘ey Brown, pro se, Fairfax, VA.
William J. Grimaldi, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC, with Whom Were Brian A. Mizoguchi, Assistant
Director, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General.
OPlNlON AND ORI)ER
KAPLAN, Judge.
The pro se plaintiff in this case, Jef&ey Brown, filed a complaint in this Court on
September 14, 2016. Mr. Brown claims that he is entitled to funds that the United States
Attorney’s Ofiice in Massachusetts has allegedly obtained through criminal and civil
forfeiture in connection With- a financial crime. The government has moved to dismiss
Mr. Brown’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims
(RCFC) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction For the reasons discussed below, the
govemment’s motion is GRANTED, and l\/lr. Brown’s complaint is DISMISSED
Without prejudice
BACKGROUND‘
I. The Relevant Criminal and Civil Proceedings
In the mid-ZOOOS, Mr. Brown Was the Victim of a fraudulent investment scheme.
w Cornpl. at 1-2, Docket No. 1; Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (Def.’s Mot.) App. at DA3-10,
1 The facts set forth in this section are drawn from the allegations in Mr. BroWn’s
complaint, Which the Court assumes are true for purposes of deciding government’s
Docket No. 5. ln 2013, the perpetrators of the scheme either pleaded guilty or Were
convicted in the United States District Court for the District of l\/lassachusetts on wire
fraud, mail fraud, racketeering, and other charges. Def.’s Mot. at 2-3.
Soon thereafter, on lune ll, 2013, Mr. Brown obtained a default judgment against
the perpetrators in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. E.”
at 3#-1. The district court awarded Mr. Brown damages in the amount of $10,925,000
based on allegations of fraud, civil conspiracy, and civil violations of the Racketeer
influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68. §e§ i_dl
Also in June 2013, the government instituted forfeiture proceedings in the
criminal case against the perpetrators in the District of l\/lassachusetts.2 l_d_. at 4. l\/Ir.
Brown had already filed a third-party claim in that case, and he objected to the
government’s forfeiture proceedings, asserting that any orders of forfeiture issued by the
District of Massachusetts would be deemed invalid based on the “Civil l\/[oney
Judgment[]” he had been awarded by the Eastern District of Virginia. l§; see also Def.’s
l\/lot. App. at DA 19~20.
In October 2013, the District of l\/Iassachusetts sentenced the perpetrators to
prison and issued monetary judgments against them § Def.’s Mot. at 5. The judgments
included a restitution order in the amount of $5,222,757.16 to be paid to the victims of
the scheme, including $978,325 to be paid to Mr. Brown. I_cL; see also Judgment in a
Criminal Case at 6w7, United States v. Gilner, No. 10»01"-10199 (D. Mass. Oct. 23, 2013),
ECF No. 205. Any payment that was not a payment in full was to be “divided
proportionately” among the named victims of the scheme. Judgment, United States v.
Gilner, No. l()-cr-10199, at 9. "l`he court also ordered forfeiture of the perpetrators’ assets
in the same amount §§ §
'l`o date, however, the government asserts that it has obtained just $42,00(} in
forfeited assets. §\‘s_e Def.’s l\/iot. at 6-7. Further, the district court in Massachusetts has
since denied a motion Mr. Brown filed asking that court to “adjudicate the validity of
[his] interest in [the perpetrators’] property/assets,” reasoning that l\/Ir. Brown is merely
“an unsecured general judgment creditor” With respect to the perpetrators id at 5-6 (first
alteration in original); see also Docket Entry, United States v. Gilner, No. 10~cr-10199
(D. l\/lass. Feb. 21, 201 6), Docket No. 253. As a consequence, the court observed, “[t]o
the degree [that he] seeks some form of ‘restitution,’ his recourse would appear to be by a
motion, as well as on jurisdictional facts set forth in the documents attached to the
parties’ filings
2 The indictment in the District of Massachusetts contained a forfeiture allegation
providing that the United States Would seek the forfeiture of any proceeds traceable to the
fraudulent scheme Def.’s Mot. at 3; see also Def.’s Mot. App. at DA14. Further, if
directly forfeitable property Was unavailable for forfeiture, the government would seek
forfeiture of any other property or assets of the perpetrators, up to the value of the
unavailable assets. Def.’s Mot. at 3; see also Def.’s l\/lot. App. at DAl4.
petition directed to the Attorney General for restoration.”3 Def.’s l\/lot at 6 (first
alteration in original); see also Docket Entry, United States v. Gilner, No. lO~cr-l()l 99
(D. Mass. Feb. 21, 2016), Docket No. 253 (citing United States v. Watll= >l< =l=
ln short, Mr. Brown has failed to allege the violation of any money~mandating
statute or constitutional provision under the Tucker Act. Further, jurisdiction to hear
many of his claims is vested solely in the United States District Courts. The Court also
lacks jurisdiction over his claims against state officials Finally, the Court cannot grant
equitable relief in his favor absent a monetary award. Accordingly, the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over the claims set forth in Mr. Brown’s complaint
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
Mr. Brown’s claims. Accordingly, the government’s motion to dismiss his complaint is
GRANTEI), and Mr. Brown’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice The Clerk is
directed to enter judgment accordingly. Each side shall bear its own costs.
I'I` IS S() ORDERED.
&i, /1//""'
ELAINE D. KAPLAN
Judge