Case 1:16-cv-01621-PEC Document 6 Filed 01/17/17 Page 1 of 4
`CIRi&E$IAL
`lln ttse @nite! btates [,ourt of Jfelersl @lsfmg
`FILED
`No. 16-1621C
`JAN I 7 2017
`(Filed: January l7,2or7)
`U.S. COURT OF
`FEDERAL CLAIMS
`
`Pro Se Complaint; Sua Sponte
`Dismissal; Frivolous.
`
`WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`THE I.]NITED STATES,
`
`Defendant.
`
`William Lee Grant. II., Springfield, IL, pro se.
`
`Heidi L. Osterhout, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United
`States Department ofJustice, for defendant.
`
`ORDER OF DISMISSAL
`
`On December 6,2016, plaintiff, William Lee Grant, II, filed a complaint in this
`court appearing pro se. ECF No. l. Plaintiff also filed with his complaint an application
`to appear in forma pauperis (IFP Application), seeking permission to proceed without
`paying the court's filing fee. ECF No. 3.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1915, a "court of the United States" is permitted to waive
`filing fees and security under certain circumstances.r See 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(a)(1); see
`also Hayes v. United States, 7l Fed. Cl. 366,366 - 67 (2006) (concluding that $
`1915(a)( I ) applies to both prisoners and non-prisoners alike). As explained by the
`website maintained by the court regarding p1q5e information, "in forma pauoeris" is
`defined as "[p]ermission to sue without prepayment of fees, given by the court to a
`person who does not have financial means to pay." Pro Se Information,
`http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/pro-se-information (last visited Jan. 13, 2017). Plaintiffs
`
`'
`The Court ofFederal Claims, while not generally considered to be a "court ofthe
`United States" within the meaning of Title 28 the United States Code, is deemed to be a
`"court of the United States" for purposes of this statute, and thus has jurisdiction to grant
`or deny IFP applications. See 28 U.S.C. $ 2503(d) (deeming the Court of Federal Claims
`to be "a court of the United States" for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. $ 1915).
`
`7B1q 1,e00 0000 50cl b3E3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-01621-PEC Document 6 Filed 01/17/17 Page 2 of 4
`
`wishing to proceed in forma pauperis must submit an affidavit that includes a statement
`of their assets, declares their inability to pay the fees or give the security, and describes
`the nature of the action brought and the basis for the redress sought. 28 U.S.C. $
`1e 1s(a)( I ).
`
`Under ordinary circumstances, "the threshold for a motion to proceed in forma
`pauperis is not high: [t]he statute requires [simply] that the applicant be 'unable to pay
`such fees.' 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(a)(1). To be 'unable to pay such fees' means that paying
`such fees would constitute a serious hardship on the plaintiff." Fiebelkorn v. United
`States, 77 Fed. Cl. 59,62 (2007); see also Moore v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl.4ll,414 -
`15 (20r0).
`
`Regardless of whether the filing fee is paid or waived, the court must dismiss a
`case upon determining that the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on
`which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(e); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
`319,325 (1989) (defining when an action lacks an arguable basis in law or fact); Taylor
`v. United States,568 F. App'x 890, 891 (Fed. Cir.2014) (citing 28 U.S.C. $
`1915(eX2)(B)) ("a district court is required to dismiss a frivolous complaint from a
`litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis."). "Frivolous complaints include those in
`which the factual allegations asserted are so unbelievable that there is no need for an
`evidentiary hearing to determine their veracity." Ta),lor, 568 F. App'x at 891 (citing
`Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327 (frivolous claims include those that describe "fantastic or
`delusional scenarios")).
`
`In his complaint, Mr. Grant presents the following questions for resolution by the
`
`court:
`
`1. What are the legal ramifications to the U.S. Department of Justice for
`creating a program to investigate the United States Federal govemment,
`and for engineering a person from birth to be an Informant for the Justice
`Department violating his constitutional rights?
`2. Where shall Illinois Govemor Bruce Rauner and Chicago Mayor Rahm
`Emanuel be tried for their acts oftreason?
`3. Will this court direct Hillary Clinton to submit to a DNA test to veri$/ it
`was her hair found on the body of Vince Foster?
`4. Where shall Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld be tried for their invasion
`of a Iraq [in] violation International law?
`
`Comol. 3.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-01621-PEC Document 6 Filed 01/17/17 Page 3 of 4
`
`The court's initial review of Mr. Grant's complaint suggests that he does not state a
`claim over which this court has jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. $ la91(aXl); Hebert v.
`United States, 114 Fed. Cl. 590, 593 (2014) (failure to comply with court's jurisdictional
`requirements not excused even for pro se plaintiffs). "Subject-matter jurisdiction may be
`challenged at any time by the parties or by the court sua sponte." Folden v. United
`States, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "In deciding whether there is subject-
`matter jurisdiction, "the allegations stated in the complaint are taken as true and
`jurisdiction is decided on the face of the pleadings." Folden, 3T 9 F .3 d at l 3 54 (quoting
`Shearin v. United States, 992 F.2d I 195, I 195-96 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). If the court
`determines that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the claim.
`Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) 12(hX3).
`
`With limited exceptions, this court has authority to "issue judgments for money
`against the United States only when they are grounded in a contract, a money-mandating
`statute, or the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment." Drake v. Fitzwater, No. 14-408C,
`2015 WL 1883766, at * I (Fed. Cl. Apr. 23,2015) (citing United States v. Testan, 424
`U.S. 392, 397-98 (1976)). A plaintiff must "identiff a substantive right for money
`damages against the United States separate from the Tucker Act itself' for the court to
`exercise jurisdiction over a claim. Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091, 1094 (Fed. Cir.
`2004). The substantive source of law allegedly violated must "'fairly be interpreted as
`mandating compensation by the Federal Government."' United States v. Navajo Nation,
`556 U.S. 287 ,290 (2009) (quoting United States v. Testan , 424 U.S. 392, 400 (1976)).
`Mr. Grant's failure to ground his claims in a money-mandating statute, regulation, or
`contract, leaves this court without jurisdiction to hear his claims.
`
`Mr. Grant has brought strikingly similar claims in other federal courts that were
`found to be frivolous and dismissed. See Grant v. Kabaker et al., No. 16-CV3132, ECF
`No. 7 (C.D. Ill., June 20,2016) (dismissing plaintiff s claims as frivolous and denying
`plaintiff s motion to proceed in forma pauperis); Grant v. Kabaker et al., No. l6-CV3239,
`ECF No. 3 (C.D. Ill., Sept. 6, 2016) (dismissing plaintiff s claims as frivolous and
`denying plaintiff s motion to proceed in forma pauperis); Grant v. Kabaker et al., No. 16-
`CV3245, ECF No. 24 (C.D.Ill., Oct. 12,2016) (granting defendant's motion to dismiss
`for failure to state a claim). Plaintiffs complaint before this court appears to be a hand
`edited copy of a petition for writ of certiorari prepared on behalf ofplaintiff for filing
`with the Supreme Court that requests review of three of plaintiff s claims dismissed by
`the U.S. District Court of the Central District of Illinois. Compl.
`
`Plaintiff has appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the
`district court's determination of his claims as frivolous. That appeal is still pending.
`Grant v. Kabaker et al., No. 16-CV3748, (7th Cir., Oct. 24,2016) appealing No. l6-
`CV3245 (C.D. Ill., 2016). Persuaded that plaintiff s motion for leave to proceed in forma
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-01621-PEC Document 6 Filed 01/17/17 Page 4 of 4
`
`pauperis on appeal was not brought in good faith, the district court denied that motion.
`Grant, No. l6-CV3245, ECF No. 33.
`
`In light of this litigation history, and in accordance with the guidance provided by
`the Federal Circuit in Taylor, 568 F. App'x at 891, the court finds that plaintiff s
`complaint involves fantastic allegations that do not require - and cannot receive - further
`proceedings here. The court also finds that plaintiffs history of filing frivolous,
`repetitive, and vexatious actions weighs heavily against granting plaintiff s IFP
`application. The cases plaintiff has filed to date reflect an abuse of the judicial process,
`which depletes the court and the govemment of the resources required to address
`meritorious claims brought by oro-se litigants.
`
`Based on plaintiff s history ofvexatious and duplicative litigation, the court finds
`that plaintiff is not entitled to a waiver of the filing fee. Accordingly, plaintiff s IFP
`Application is DENIED, and plaintiff s complaint is DISMISSED as frivolous in
`accordance with 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(e)(2)(B), and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
`underRCFC 12(hX3).
`
`The Clerk ofcourt shall enter judgment for defendant. No costs.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`ATzuCIAE. CAMPB
`ChiefJudge
`
`4
`
`