Case 1:18-cv-01693-MMS Document 16 Filed 04/05/19 Page 1 of 4
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01693-MMS Document 16 Filed 04/05/19 Page 1 of 4
`
`311 the filim’teh games Qtuurt at erheral @Iaima
`
`No. 18-1693C
`
`(Filed: April 5, 2019)
`NOT FOR PUBLICATION
`
`$******$*****$*******$*****$**$********
`
`RAJESH DI-IARIA,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`THE UNITED STATES,
`
`*********
`
`Defendant.
`********************$********$******$**
`
`m E Plaintiff; Motion to Dismiss, RCFC
`12(b)(l); Defendants Other Than the United
`States; Extradition Treaty; Criminal Matters
`
`OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Plaintiff Rajesh Dharia, proceeding m E, filed suit in this court on October 22, 2019,
`seeking relief arising from a terrorist attack in India. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that “David
`Hadley” was responsible for a series of train bombings in Mumbai, India, that occurred on July
`11, 2006; that Mr. Hadley is in jail for conspiring to carry out the bombings; that the United
`States has not handed Mr. Hadley over to India; and that the United States secretly paid a bribe
`to India.I Based on these allegations, plaintiff contends that the United States has violated its
`extradition treaty with Indiawbreaching a contract and flouting an “international norm.”
`Accordingly, plaintiff seeks extensive monetary damages;2 a default judgment against the United
`States; arrest warrants for John Doe, Jenny Doe, and the federai prosecutor; the charging of the
`United States for harboring a terrorist; and the assistance of five attorneys at no cost to him.
`
`Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff’s compiaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules
`of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”), arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction
`
`1 According to publicly available information, David Headly is currently imprisoned in
`the United States for conspiring to carry out a series of terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India in
`November 2008. See, e.g., Press Reiease, Office of Public Affairs, US. Dep’t of Justice, David
`Coieman Headley Sentenced to 35 Years in Prison for Role in India and Denmark Terror Plots
`(Jan. 24, 2013), httpszllwwwjustice.gov/opa/pr/david-coleman-headley-sentenced~35-years-
`prison-role—india-and-denmarl(—terror-plots.
`
`2 Plaintiff specifically seeks damages in the amount of “l,000000000000000000000000,
`in short [that] America Surrender totally and unconditionally to the People of India.”
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01693-MMS Document 16 Filed 04/05/19 Page 2 of 4
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01693-MMS Document 16 Filed 04/05/19 Page 2 of 4
`
`to entertain plaintiff’s claims.3 In his response, plaintiff contends that the court possesses
`jurisdiction over his claims, and that the court must serve as a bulwark against terrorism by
`ensuring the extradition of Mr. Hadiey to India and the arrest and conviction of the individuals
`involved in Mr. Hadley’s federal prosecution. Defendant, in its reply, states that the assertions in
`plaintiff’s response further establish that the court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff 3 claims. The
`motion is now fuiiy briefed and the court deems oral argument unnecessary. For the reasons
`stated below, the court grants defendant’s motion and dismisses plaintiff’s complaint.
`
`I. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Standard of Review
`
`When considering whether to dismiss a complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to
`RCFC 12(b)(1), a court assumes that the allegations in the complaint are true and construes those
`allegations in the plaintiff’s favor. Trusted integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159,
`1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011). However, plaintiffs proceeding prp sq are not excused from meeting
`basic jurisdictional requirements, Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
`even though the court holds their complaints to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings
`drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520—21 (1972). In other words, a plaintiff
`proceeding mg g must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the court possesses
`
`jurisdiction. & McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp, 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); Trusted
`Integration, Inc., 659 F.3d at 1163. If the court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
`a claim, RCFC 12(h)(3) requires the court to dismiss that claim.
`
`B. Jurisdiction
`
`Whether the court has jurisdiction to decide the merits of a case is a threshold matter.
`See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 ( 1998). “Without jurisdiction the
`court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it
`ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and
`dismissing the cause.” Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514 (1868). The parties or the
`court fl sponte may challenge the existence of subject matter jurisdiction at any time. Arbaugh
`v. Y & H Conn, 546 US. 500, 506 (2006).
`
`The ability of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Court of Federal Claims”) to
`entertain suits against the United States is limited. “The United States, as sovereign, is immune
`from suit save as it consents to be sued.” United States V. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941).
`The waiver of immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” United
`States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 (1969).
`
`The Tucker Act, the principal statute governing the jurisdiction of this court, waives
`sovereign immunity for claims against the United States, not sounding in tort, that are founded
`upon the United States Constitution, a federal statute or regulation, or an express or implied
`
`3 Defendant also refers to RCFC 12(b)(6), but does not advance any arguments under
`that rule.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01693-MMS Document 16 Filed 04/05/19 Page 3 of 4
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01693-MMS Document 16 Filed 04/05/19 Page 3 of 4
`
`contract with the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (2012). However, the Tucker Act is
`merely a jurisdictional statute and “does not create any substantive right enforceable against the
`United States for money damages.” United States v. Testan, 424 US. 392, 398 (1976). Instead,
`the substantive right must appear in another source of law, such as a “money—mandating
`constitutional provision, statute or regulation that has been violated, or an express or implied
`
`contract with the United States.” Loveladies Harbor inc. v. United States, 27 F.3d 1545, 1554
`(Fed. Cir. 1994) (en bane).
`
`C. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Entertain Plaintiff’s Claims
`
`As an initial matter, the couit observes that plaintiff names multiple defendants in his
`complaint:
`the United States, the Federal Bureau of investigation, “David Hadley,” Robert
`Gates, George Bush, “Dick Chenny,”4 John Doe, and Jenny Doe. However, it is well settled that
`the United States is the only proper defendant in the Court of Federal Claims. SE 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1491(a)( 1) (providing that the Cou1t of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over claims against the
`United States); RCFC 10(3) (requiring that the United States be designated as the defendant in
`the Court of Federal Claims); Stephenson v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 186, 190 (2003) (“[T]he
`any proper defendant for any matter before this court is the United States, not its officers, nor
`any other individual.”). This court does not possess jurisdiction to hear claims against individual
`federal government officials. E Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
`(“The Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over suits against the United
`States, not against individual federal officials”). Nor does it have jurisdiction to hear claims
`between private parties. See, e.g., Nat’l City Bank of Evansville v. United States, 163 F. Supp.
`846, 852 (Ct. C1. 1958) (“It is well established that the jurisdiction of this court extends oniy to
`claims against the United States, and obviously a controversy between private parties could not
`be entertained.” (footnotes omitted)). Indeed, the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims “is
`confined to the rendition of money judgments in suits brought for that relief against the United
`States, .
`.
`. and if 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.” United States V. Sherwood, 312 US.
`584, 588 (1941). Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against all parties except the United States must
`be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
`
`Second, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider claims arising from a treaty unless
`otherwise provided by a federal statute. E 28 U.S.C. § 1502 (“Except as otherwise provided by
`Act of Congress, the United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction of any
`claim against the United States growing out of or dependent upon any treaty entered into with
`foreign nations”). Plaintiff has not identified, and the court could not locate, any federal statute
`granting the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to entertain claims arising from the extradition
`treaty between the United States and India.5 Thus, all such claims must be dismissed.
`
`4 Although plaintiff identifies this individual as “Dick Chenny,” the court presumes that
`plaintiff is referring to Richard Bruce “Dick” Cheney, the 46th Vice President of the United
`States (2001-2009).
`
`5 There is a statute within the federal criminal code that authorizes judges of the United
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01693-MMS Document 16 Filed 04/05/19 Page 4 of 4
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01693-MMS Document 16 Filed 04/05/19 Page 4 of 4
`
`Moreover, to the extent that plaintiff is claiming that the purported treaty violation
`constitutes a breach of contract, the court lacks jurisdiction to resolve such a claim. Although the
`Court of Federal Claims possesses jurisdiction over breach-of-contract claims, that jurisdiction
`extends only to situations in which there is privity of contract between the plaintiff and the
`
`United States, see Cienega Gardens V. United States, 194 F.3d 1231, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1998), or in
`which an exception to the privity rule applies, E First Hartford Corp. Pension Plan & Trust v.
`United States, 194 F.3d 1279, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (enumerating the following exceptions to
`the privity rule: suits by intended third-party beneficiaries, suits by subcontractors “by means of
`a pass-through suit when the prime contractor is liable to the subcontractor for the
`subcontractor’s damages,” and suits by government contract sureties “for funds improperly
`disbursed to a prime contractor”). Plaintiff is not a party to the extradition treaty, and therefore
`is not in privity with the United States. Further, plaintiff has not invoked any of the exceptions
`to the privity rule. Accordingly, plaintiff‘s breach—ofrcontract claim must be dismissed.
`
`Finally, in seeking to have the United States charged with harboring a ten‘orist and to
`have the court to issue arrest warrants, plaintiff is requesting relief under the federal criminal
`code. However, the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to entertain criminal matters, such
`as claims arising under the federal criminal code or claims regarding the conduct of criminal
`proceedings. & Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 379-80 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming that
`the Court of Federal Claims had “‘no jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims whatsoever under the
`federal criminal code’”); Kania v. United States, 650 F.2d 264, 268 (Ct. C1. 1981) (noting that
`“the role of the judiciary in the high function of enforcing and policing the criminal law is
`assigned to the courts of general jurisdiction and not to this court”). Thus, the court lacks the
`authority to issue arrest warrants or make criminal charges.
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`
`The court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint and determined that plaintiff has not
`asserted any claims over which the Court of Federal Claims possesses jurisdiction. Therefore,
`the court GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss and DISMISSES plaintiff’s complaint for
`lack ofjurisdiction. No costs. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
` Chief Judge
`
`government. See 18 U.S.C. § 3184 (2012). However, as explained below, the Court of Federal
`Claims lacks jurisdiction over criminal matters.
`
`