De La O, Jr. v. United States
21-1329
Fed. Cl.Jul 27, 2021Background
- Pro se plaintiff Paul Mark De La O Jr. filed a broad complaint (originally unsigned) alleging the United States (through FDA and other agencies) and numerous private companies caused deaths, genocide, false advertising, public endangerment, and other harms related to vaccines, food products, chemicals, and consumer goods.
- The original unsigned complaint prompted an order to refile signed; initial mailings were returned and the complaint was dismissed without prejudice; the dismissal was vacated after the plaintiff successfully moved for reconsideration and filed a signed complaint on July 15, 2021.
- Plaintiff sought monetary damages (billions, with a floor of $70,300,000) from the United States and a long list of private defendants (food, beverage, pharmaceutical, and consumer-product companies) and named federal agencies.
- The Court addressed threshold jurisdiction under the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491), which grants the Court of Federal Claims limited money‑mandating jurisdiction against the United States for non‑tort claims founded on contract, statute, regulation, or constitutional provisions.
- The complaint did not identify any contract or money‑mandating statute/regulation; many allegations were criminal or tort in nature (e.g., accomplice to murder, genocide, false advertising, willful poisoning).
- The Court concluded it lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction over claims against non‑United‑States defendants and over the plaintiff’s criminal and tort claims against the United States, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over non‑U.S. defendants | De La O seeks money damages from many private companies and some federal agencies | Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over defendants other than the United States | Dismissed claims against all non‑United‑States defendants for lack of jurisdiction (Sherwood rule) |
| Jurisdiction for criminal law claims | De La O alleges crimes (murder, genocide, complicity) by the U.S. | Criminal claims are not cognizable in this court | Dismissed: Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate criminal code claims against the U.S. |
| Tort claims against the United States | De La O alleges false advertising, public endangerment, poisoning, etc. | Tucker Act excludes tort claims from this court’s jurisdiction | Dismissed: tort claims barred; Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over torts |
| Money‑mandating source / Tucker Act basis | De La O seeks money damages but cites no statute, contract, or money‑mandating regulation | Absent a contract or money‑mandating statute/regulation, Tucker Act does not confer jurisdiction | Dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (jurisdiction is threshold issue courts must resolve)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (Court of Federal Claims cannot adjudicate claims against non‑United‑States defendants)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (source of liability must fairly be interpreted as money‑mandating)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (2009) (Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity only where law mandates compensation)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (not every claim invoking federal law is cognizable under the Tucker Act)
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (1993) (tort claims are outside the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction)
- Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over federal criminal claims)
- Sanders v. United States, 252 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (same)
- Holley v. United States, 124 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (court starts jurisdiction analysis with the complaint and construes pro se pleadings liberally)