In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 22-1628 Filed: November 10, 2022 ROBERT L. HILLS, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pro se Plaintiff, Robert L. Hills’s (“Mr. Hills”) Complaint outlines claims related to his traffic-stop arrest and ensuing adjudication. (Compl., ECF No. 1). Because these claims only implicate local, county, or state officers and departments, the Court dismisses the Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. RCFC 12(h)(3). While driving through Poland, Ohio, police stopped and subsequently arrested Mr. Hills for obstructing official business. See Ohio. Rev. Code § 2921.31; (Compl. Ex. 1 at 3, ECF No. 1- 1).1 Mr. Hills claims that the arrest was “racially motivated,” and violated “the Privacy Act of 1974,” rights and duties owed to him as a self-recognized “American Indian” under 18 U.S.C. § 112, “the Jay Trea[t]y of 1794 article 3,” his rights to “Substantive Due Process,” and “to drive on [a] public street with freedom from police interference.” Mr. Hills also claims that his “pre- trial detention” for “refusing unconstitutional stipulation for probation,” in the “Mahoning [C]ounty jail,” constituted “[f]alse imprisonment as retaliation” under 42 U.S.C. § 12203 and violated his “constitutional rights.” (Compl. at 1–2). As a threshold matter, the Court exercises an “independent obligation” to determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted in the Complaint. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010); see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998). RCFC 12(h)(3) provides: “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” In its subject-matter jurisdiction review, the Court will treat factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Estes Express Lines v. United States, 739 F.3d 689, 692 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Pro se plaintiffs are held to more lenient standards in drafting their pleading than lawyers. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). This permissive standard, however, does 1 For the purposes of determining subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, the Court “take[s] as true the facts alleged [in the complaint].” Catawba Indian Tribe of S.C. v. United States, 982 F.2d 1564, 1568–69 (Fed. Cir. 1993). not exempt pro se plaintiffs from the burden of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The Court of Federal Claims possesses jurisdiction over alleged violations by the United States that mandate payment of money damages by the Federal Government. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The United States’ mandate for money damages can arise from: (1) an express or implied contract with the United States; (2) right for a refund of a payment made to the United States; or (3) a constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision. Id. The Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction is limited by the Tucker Act to rendition of money damages only in suits “against the United States.” McGrath v. United States, 85 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals