Brooker v. United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 52

Plaintiffs filed this case pro se on September 14, 2012 seeking relief in the United States Court of Federal Claims.
The court construes two parts of the filing (Part One and Part Two) as a single complaint by six named plaintiffs.
The complaint is largely incoherent, contains numerous copies of documents marked as evidence, and resembles prior dismissed filings in other courts.
The court has repeatedly dismissed similar actions for lack of jurisdiction and noted pattern of bad-faith filings by plaintiffs.
The court sua sponte dismisses for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and imposes sanctions under the court’s inherent power.
The Office of the Clerk is instructed to refer unfiled future filings by any plaintiff to a judge for determination of bad-faith indicia and potential rejection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject matter jurisdiction exists?	Brooker/Brooker claim jurisdiction under unspecified basis	No jurisdictional basis identified nor United States party named	Lack of subject matter jurisdiction; dismissal warranted
Transfer to another court appropriate?	Not explicitly argued; plaintiffs seek relief in CF Claims Court	Transfer unnecessary due to pattern of bad-faith filings	Transfer not appropriate; dismissal remains proper
Sanctions appropriate?	Not clearly disputed	Court may sanction for bad-faith conduct	Sanctions warranted under the court’s inherent power; dismissal affirmed

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (inherent power to sanction for bad-faith conduct; broad but restrained discretion)
Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exchange Serv., 846 F.2d 746 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (subject-matter jurisdiction burden and preponderance standard)
McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178 (1936) (burden on plaintiffs to establish jurisdiction; pro se must meet basic requirements)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleading held to less stringent standards but must meet jurisdictional requirements)