Friend El v. United States

' ' “~ FlLED In the United States Court of Federal CIaima.PR 2 3 2018 No. l7-2029 (Pro Se)

. . OURT OF (Filed: April 23, 2018 | Not For Publication) F§§E§AL CLA|MS ) Keywords: Pro Se Plaintiff; Motion to JONATHON LARON FRIEND EL, ) Dismiss; Subj ect Matter Jurisdiction. ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) )

Jonathon Laron Friend El, Marion, NC, pro se.

John S. Groat, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, with Whom Were Deborah A. Bynum, Assistant Director, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and ChadA. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorncy General, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER KAPLAN, Judge.

Plaintiff Jonathon Laron Friend El filed a complaint in this Court on December 22, 201'7. l`he government has moved to dismiss Mr. Friend El’s complaint For the reasons discussed below, the govemment’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Accordingly, Mr. Friend El’s complaint is DISMISSED Without prejudice BACKGROUNDl Mr. Friend El is currently incarcerated in a state prison in North Carolina. §§§ Friend v. Schatzman, No. l:lSCV23l, 2015 WL 1346245, at *l (M.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 2015). The allegations in his complaint posit the existence of a wide-ranging conspiracy to somehow commercialize the criminal justice system for the financial benefit of (among others) judges and prosecutors E Compl. at 2e10, Docl<et No. l. ln connection with these claims, Mr. Friend El alleges that he has been “unjustly convicted and imprisoned” because the “courts”

Further, according to Mr. Friend El, the “alleged Criminal/l\/lisdemeanor cases” against him “are really civil claims in equity.” § at 2 (quotation omitted). He claims that the federal and state governments acting in concert, “securitize” such cases through the following process: first, “[a]fcer finding the alleged Defendant guilty,” the clerk of the state court “sells the judgments to the Federal Courts,” after which “[t]he judgments are . . . taken to the federal Discount window,” converted by some unspecified means into “notes,” and then “pooled together and sold as bonds.” I_d. at 2-4. According to Mr. Friend El, “[s]aid bonds are liens against me.”2 Ld at 4.

Mr. Friend El asserts that has “never authorized the United States . . . nor the State . . . of North Carolina, to securitize any documents in any case against me.” l_d; at 9.

Further, he contends, “the [a]ct of engaging in commercial transactions on behalf of another . . . without their knowledge, consent and authorization is fraud.” id at 10 (emphasis omitted).

Based on these allegations, Mr. Friend El “demand[s] that [he] be immediately released from prison,” apparently because his conviction was “fraud.” I_cL He also requests that “all funds from all cases . . . be sent to [him] immediately” and that his name “be removed from all government databases indicating bad credit.” I_d. at 11. FinallyJ he asks for $300,000,000 in damages and “[a]ny other relief/remedy th[e] Court deems appropriate.” I_d.

DISCUSSION ln deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court accepts as true all undisputed facts in the pleadings and draws ali reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.Bd 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011).The court may, however, “inquire into jurisdictional facts” to determine Whether it has jurisdictionl Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d 991, 993 (Fed. Cir. 1991), lt is well established that complaints filed by }M g plaintiffs (as is this one), are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). NonetheleSS, even §§ se plaintiffs must persuade the Court that jurisdictional

Applying these standards, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Friend El’s complaint First, under principles of federalism, “among the federal courts, only the United States Supreme Court may review the judgments of state courts.” J iron v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 190, 200 (citing, inter alia, Johnson v. Wav Cool l\/lfg., L.L.C., 20 F. App’x 895, 897 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (per curiam)). The Court thus cannot entertain Mr. Friend El’s attempts to collaterally attack his state court conviction as “fraud” or order any relief related to that conviction.

Fuither, Court cannot assert jurisdiction over claims against any defendant other than the United States. §_e§ United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (“[I]f the relief sought is against others than the United States the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court.”) Thus, to the extent Mr. Friend El’s allegations concern the actions of private actors or particular state or federal officials, the court has no jurisdiction over such claims Finally, Mr. Friend El’s demand for money damages does not appear to be rooted in any particular federal statute, regulation, or constitutional provision, let alone one that could fairly be interpreted as money-mandating Accordingly, the Court lacks any basis upon which to grant Mr. Friend El’s request for an award of money damages §§§ Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 216-17. And it is axiomatic that the Court lacks the power to grant injunctive relief except where it is incidental to a money judgment 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a); see also Todd v. United States, 386 F.?sd 1091, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Court therefore has no jurisdiction over Mr. Friend El’s requests for non-monetary relief.

In short, the Court lacks jurisdiction over all of Mr. Friend El’s claims. His complaint must therefore be DISMISSED without prejudice3

CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, the govemment’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Mr. Friend El’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly Each side shall bear its own costs. a /M;_., IT IS SO ORDERED.

ELAINE D. KC¢\PLAN Judge