Swanson v. United States

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 22-1346C
(Filed: May 12, 2023)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
***************************************
GARY L. SWANSON, *
*
Plaintiff, *
*
v. *
*
THE UNITED STATES, *
*
Defendant. *
*
***************************************
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Gary L. Swanson, proceeding pro se, seeks money damages from the
United States. Although he does not specify the exact nature of his claims, they
appear to relate to matters pending in or decided by the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, various North Carolina state agencies, the United States Department
of the Treasury, and the United States Government Accountability Office. See
Complaint (ECF 1); Complaint Exhibits (ECF 13). The government has moved to
dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).1 The motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Pro se plaintiffs like Mr. Swanson are “entitled to a liberal construction of
[their] pleadings.” See Howard-Pinson v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 551, 553 (2006)
(citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972)). A complaint in this Court
must, however, contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief[.]” RCFC 8(a)(2). The allegations need not be “detailed,”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007)), but must be “sufficient ..., [when] accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face,’” id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
1 See Mot. to Dismiss (ECF 10). Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Strike” (ECF 11), which I construe as an
opposition to the motion to dismiss. To the extent it seeks any relief, it is DENIED. The government
filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss (ECF 14). Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF 7) is GRANTED. Plaintiff also filed a motion for appointment of a special master
(ECF 16), which is DENIED. The “Notice of Protest” received by the Court from Mr. Swanson on May
2, 2023 is FILED BY MY LEAVE, but is DENIED to the extent it requests any relief.
“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. A court considers whether to make that inference in light of
“its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.
Claims for money in this Court are generally premised on (1) contracts between
the plaintiff and the United States or (2) laws or constitutional provisions that require
the United States to pay money to the plaintiff. Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d
1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)). This Court cannot hear
claims against defendants other than the United States, and it cannot review the
decisions of other courts. Jones v. United States, 440 F. App’x 916, 918 (Fed. Cir.
2011); see also Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Here, Mr. Swanson provides no facts suggesting that the United States — the
only proper defendant in this Court, see Stephenson v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 186,
190 (2003) (citing United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941)) — is liable to
him under any legal theory. At most, Mr. Swanson claims that he has an express or
implied contract with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare
system, Mot. to Strike at 2, and that certain federal agencies are “[m]ismanaged,”
thus breaching the fiduciary duty owed him by the United States, id. at 3. None of
that permits an inference that the United States owes Mr. Swanson money under any
contract or law.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Mr.
Swanson has leave to file an amended complaint no later than June 12, 2023. If Mr.
Swanson does not file an amended complaint, or if his amended complaint does not
contain factual material sufficient to meet this Court’s pleading standards, the case
will be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Stephen S. Schwartz
STEPHEN S. SCHWARTZ
Judge
-2-