Sharpe v. United States, 17-217

Pro se plaintiff Stephen Sharpe (Lyons, GA) sued several private parties (e.g., Key Bank, First Family Financial Services, attorneys), individuals, and the Superior Court of Georgia seeking money damages and removal of a balloon-note/security deed from county court records.
Complaint alleges fraudulent loan/balloon-note transactions, forged signatures, wrongful liens, double taxation, and that a judge/attorney used the courthouse to perpetrate fraud.
Plaintiff attached loan instruments (balloon note, security deed) and filed a sealed notice amplifying allegations and seeking specific amounts ($63,733.96 and $17,848.00).
The United States moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim).
Court reviewed the pleadings, assumed well-pleaded factual assertions as true for jurisdictional review, and analyzed whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act.
Court concluded Sharpe asserted claims solely against private parties and state court/state entities, not the United States, and therefore dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court did not reach the merits/12(b)(6) arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over claims against private parties and state courts	Sharpe seeks money and injunctive relief based on alleged fraud relating to loan instruments and county court filings	Government: Court lacks jurisdiction because plaintiff sues private parties and state entities; Tucker Act grants jurisdiction only for claims against the United States and requires a money-mandating source of law	Held: No jurisdiction. Claims against private entities and the Superior Court of Georgia are beyond this Court's jurisdiction; dismissal under RCFC 12(b)(1) granted
Whether complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim	Implicitly argues defendants committed fraud and caused monetary loss and record harm	Government alternatively argued complaint fails to state a claim under RCFC 12(b)(6)	Court did not reach 12(b)(6) because lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was dispositive

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se complaints given liberal construction)
United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (Court of Claims jurisdiction limited to suits against the United States)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and requires separate substantive source for money damages)
Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (plaintiff must identify money-mandating source of law to invoke Tucker Act jurisdiction)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (clarified pleading plausibility standard)