Roberson v. United States

• Decision Date: 14 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. 13-844C,13-844C
• Parties: CAROL SUE ROBERSON, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

CAROL SUE ROBERSON, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 13-844C

United States Court of Federal Claims

Filed: March 14, 2014

ORIGINAL

RCFC 12(b)(1); RCFC 12(b)(6);

17 U.S.C. §411; Copyright

Registration Before Filing Suit

Requirement; No Jurisdiction Over

Tort Claims; Contract Formation;

Pro Se Plaintiff

Carol Sue Robcrson, Alio, GA, pro se.

Meen Geu Oh, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

SWEENEY, Judge

In this action, plaintiff Carol Sue Roberson seeks to recover damages based on what she claims was a wrongful response from the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") when she submitted an entry in an FTC-sponsored contest. Because the court lacks jurisdiction over a portion of plaintiff's complaint and because plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for the remainder of the complaint, the court dismisses plaintiff's complaint.

I. BACKGROUND

As part of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, federal agencies "may carry out a program to award prizes competitively to stimulate innovation that has the potential to advance the mission of the agency. 15 U.S.C. § 3719 (2012). The FTC took advantage of this authorization to create the "FTC Robocall Challenge," in which the public would "create innovative solutions that [would] block illegal robocalls on landlines and mobile phones." Def.'s Mot., Ex. 1 at 1 (FTC Robocall Challenge Official Rules). The agency offered a $50,000 prize to the "Best Overall Solution." Id. at 7. The FTC also outlined in its rules that, to enter the contest, a contestant needed to visit the "Robocall Challenge" website, register by providing an electronic-mail address, and submit the proposal through the website. Id. at 2-3.

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in a Georgia state prison. In her complaint, plaintiff alleges that she became aware of the FTC's contest when she read an advertisement in the Macon Georgia Telegraph. Compl. ¶ 17. Plaintiff claims that she submitted an entry in thecompetition by mailing a one-page document to the FTC's Atlanta, Georgia office, outlining what she calls in her complaint a proposal for "I.S.C.O.N. (Intelligent, [Satellites], Communications, Offensive Network)." Id. ¶¶ 11, 17. Plaintiff admits that she mailed this submission to, rather than filing it electronically with, the FTC, id. ¶ 11, and that because the FTC expected the submissions to be submitted electronically, her document was sent to the FTC's Consumer Response Center, part of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, see id. ¶ 17.¹

Upon receipt of plaintiff's document, the FTC wrote to plaintiff notifying her that, because it was classifying her document as a consumer complaint, the document would be entered into a "Global Secure Online Publication to all global law enforcement agencies," via the FTC's online consumer complaint database.² See id. Plaintiff became uneasy with the inclusion of this document in the database, and wrote to the FTC to express her concern that her secret solution to blocking robocalls had been broadly published without her consent. Id. Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that when she tried to air her concerns within the Georgia prison, she was refused a grievance process. Id. ¶ 14. She alleges that "all queries, questions[, and] pleas" to defendant and the prison were "unresponsive, then legalistically diverted, and falsified, and blatantly tenacious." Id. ¶ 15.

Unhappy with the FTC's handling of the dispute, on October 28, 2013, plaintiff filed suit in this court. In her complaint, plaintiff alleges copyright infringement under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b), a right to an accounting under 28 U.S.C. § 1494, violations of Title V of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. §§ 501-505, violations of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, violations of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, violations of unspecified individual rights reserved by the Ninth Amendment, and, impliedly, a breach of contract. See Compl. ¶¶ 2-9. Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court appoint counsel to represent her in this proceeding and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff also filed a document requesting an update on her request for appointment of counsel and on her request to file supporting evidence with the court, which the court accepted as filed on January 2, 2014.

On January 31, 2014, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). Plaintiff filed a response on February 18, 2014, and defendant filed a reply on March 8, 2014. Oral argument is unnecessary.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Pro Se Plaintiffs

A pro se plaintiff's complaint, '"however inartfully pleaded,' must be held to 'less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers' . . . ." Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 10 n.7 (1980) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam)). Courts have "strained [their] proper role in adversary proceedings to the limit, searching . . . to see if plaintiff has a cause of action somewhere displayed." Ruderer v, United States, 412 F.2d 1285, 1292 (Ct. Cl. 1969). Although plaintiff's pleadings are held to a less stringent standard, such leniency "with respect to mere formalities does not relieve the burden to meet jurisdictional requirements." Minehan v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 249, 253 (2007); see also Kelley v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ("[A] court may not similarly take a liberal view of that jurisdictional requirement and set a different rule for pro se litigants only."); Bernard v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 497, 499 (2004) (noting that pro se plaintiffs are not excused from satisfying jurisdictional requirements), aff'd, 98 F. App'x 860 (Fed. Cir.).

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's claims for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), contending that this court lacks jurisdiction over the causes of action alleged in the complaint. Whether the court possesses 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); see also Matthews v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 274, 278 (2006) (subject matter jurisdiction is "an inflexible matter that must be considered before proceeding to evaluate the merits of a case").

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court generally assumes that the allegations in the complaint are true and construes those allegations in the plaintiff's favor. Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 797 (Fed. Cir. 1995). However, if the defendant challenges the factual basis of the court's jurisdiction, contested allegations in the complaint are not controlling. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The court may therefore look to evidence outside the pleadings to determine the existence of jurisdiction. Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 735 & n.4 (1974). If the court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over a claim, the court must dismiss it. Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514 (1868) ("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."). The parties, or the court sua sponte, may challenge the court's subject matter jurisdiction at any time. Arbaueh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006).

C. Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted

"A complaint must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) when the facts asserted do not give rise to a legal remedy." Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. United States, 704 F.3d 949, 954 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Lindsay v. United States, 295 F.3d 1252, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). "When considering an RCFC 12(b)(6) motion, the court "must determine 'whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims,' not whether the claimant will ultimatelyprevail." Chapman Law Firm Co. v. Greenleaf Constr. Co., 490 F.3d 934, 938 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Scheuer v, Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Harlow v Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 814-19 (1982)). "A motion made under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the legal theory of the complaint, not the sufficiency of any evidence that might be adduced." RhinoCorps Co. v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 481, 492 (2009).

"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim of relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2006)). "Deciding whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Neither allegations "that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability," nor "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements," are sufficient. Id.

"The court assumes all well-pled factual allegations are true and indulges in all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant" Terry v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 645, 652 (2012) (citing United Pac. Ins. Co. v. United States, 464 F.3d 1325, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The court is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A failure to allege a cause of action upon which relief can be granted warrants a judgment on the merits rather than a...