Pedro N. Ibanez v. United States

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PEDRO N. IBANEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1113
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-00767-LAS, Senior Judge Loren A. Smith.
______________________
Decided: December 12, 2024
______________________
PEDRO N. IBANEZ, Temecula, CA, pro se.
CONRAD JOSEPH DEWITTE, JR., Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also
represented by SCOTT DAVID BOLDEN, BRIAN M. BOYNTON.
______________________
Before LOURIE, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Case: 24-1113 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 12/12/2024

-- 1 of 5 --

IBANEZ v. US 2
Pedro Ibanez appeals from a decision of the U.S. Court
of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”) dismissing his
copyright infringement claims sua sponte pursuant to
Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims
(“RCFC”) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Ibanez v.
United States, No. 23-767, 2023 WL 4715176 (Fed. Cl. July,
24 2023) (“Decision”).
For the following reasons, we affirm that dismissal, but
we do so on the ground that Ibanez failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted under RCFC 12(b)(6).
BACKGROUND
Ibanez filed a complaint against the United States
(“the government”), alleging copyright infringement. See
S.A. 1005–08.1 Specifically, Ibanez alleges that “[s]ince
2009 [the] US Government has copied and implemented
unique information” from his written work entitled “NO
TAXES NO POVERTY STRONG GOVERNMENT” (“1998
Book”). S.A. 1006. He contends that the government’s use
of his work “was a substantial factor in the successful exit
of the country from the Pandemic of 2020–2021.” Id.
Ibanez attached copies of two government works with
his complaint: a partial version of a 2021 Monetary Policy
Report published by the Federal Reserve (“2021 Report”),
see S.A. 1040–52, and a 2022 speech by the Chairman of
the Federal Reserve (“2022 Speech”). S.A. 1073–76. Ibanez
does not address either government work in his complaint,
let alone allege that either work contains material copied
from his 1998 Book. See S.A. 1005–08.
The Claims Court, upon review of the complaint and its
corresponding attachments, issued an order for Ibanez “TO
SHOW CAUSE as to why this case should not be dismissed
1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix
included with Defendant-Appellee’s informal brief.
Case: 24-1113 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 12/12/2024

-- 2 of 5 --

IBANEZ v. US 3
pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3).” S.A. 1095. Ibanez responded
by citing 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b), which generally provides the
Claims Court with jurisdiction over copyright infringement
claims made against the government. S.A. 1097–1101.
The Claims Court then determined that “[t]he allegations
asserted in the Complaint—that the Government ‘copied
and implemented unique information’ from [Ibanez]’s
copywritten work, which ‘was a substantial factor in the
successful exit of the country from the Pandemic of 2020–
2021’—fall into the category of ‘frivolous’ or ‘clearly
baseless.’” Decision, at *1 (citations omitted). The Claims
Court therefore dismissed the claims for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(h)(3) because “claims
supported by facts that are ‘delusional,’ ‘clearly baseless,’
or ‘rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible’” cannot fall within the Claims Court’s
jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Spencer v. United States, 98 Fed.
Cl. 349, 356 (2011)).
Ibanez filed a motion for reconsideration, see S.A. 1103,
which was denied. S.A. 1004. Ibanez timely appealed. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
DISCUSSION
We review the Claims Court’s legal conclusions, such
as a dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, de
novo. Am. Bankers Ass’n v. United States, 932 F.3d 1375,
1380 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to ‘state a claim to 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 (2007)). In
reviewing a dismissal under RCFC 12(b)(6), “we must
accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw
all reasonable inferences in [the appellant’s] favor.” Boyle
v. United States, 200 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Although pleadings must be construed liberally for pro se
litigants, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007),
Case: 24-1113 Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 12/12/2024

-- 3 of 5 --

IBANEZ v. US 4
“regardless of whether the plaintiff is proceeding pro se or
is represented by counsel, conclusory allegations or legal
conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not
suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.” McZeal v. Sprint
Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (cleaned
up).
To state a plausible claim of copyright infringement, a
complaint must adequately allege: “(1) ownership of a valid
copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the
work that are original.” Gaylord v. United States, 595 F.3d
1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis added) (quoting Feist
Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361
(1991)).
Here, Ibanez has plausibly alleged ownership of a valid
copyright. He provided, with his complaint, a copy of a
certification of registration for the 1998 Book from the U.S.
Copyright Office. S.A. 1010–11. Ibanez has not, however,
plausibly alleged any actual “copying” of the 1998 Book. He
only makes the conclusory allegation that the government
has copied the 1998 Book but does not provide any factual
support for that allegation. See S.A. 1006. Specifically,
Ibanez does not identify what government works allegedly
infringe, how such works allegedly infringe, or who
committed the alleged infringement. Id. The only
government works that Ibanez provided were a 2021
Report (S.A. 1040–52) and a 2022 Speech (S.A. 1073–76),
but even so, Ibanez does not contend that either work
contains material copied from the 1998 Book. Id. at 1006–
08, 1070–72.
In fact, Ibanez admits that the government did not
reproduce or distribute any copies of any part of the 1998
Book or otherwise violate any of his exclusive rights as the
1998 Book’s copyright owner. See S.A. 1072 (“Plaintiff and
Defendant words are different but intended Meaning and
Expression is REASONABLY SIMILAR”). Instead, Ibanez
merely alleges that the government implemented the ideas
Case: 24-1113 Document: 38 Page: 4 Filed: 12/12/2024

-- 4 of 5 --

IBANEZ v. US 5
expressed in his 1998 Book. See S.A. 1006 (alleging that
the government “implemented unique information” from
the 1998 Book, including “How to manipulate the money
supply without incurring Hyperinflation” and how to
“Print and Distribute Unlimited money”). Although
copyright protection extends to literary works, 17 U.S.C.
§ 102(a), it does not extend to the facts and ideas expressed
in such copyrighted work. Id. § 102(b); see Boyle, 200 F.3d
at 1373 (“Copyright protection does not extend to ideas
expressed in a copyrighted work.”). Thus, even if the
government’s actions were modeled after the ideas
expressed in Ibanez’s 1998 Book, that would not affect any
claim of copyright infringement. Id. Ibanez’s allegations
therefore cannot support a claim for relief under
RCFC 12(b)(6).
CONCLUSION
Ibanez failed to state a claim for relief under
RCFC 12(b)(6), and thus the trial court correctly
determined that Ibanez’s claims should be dismissed. We
have considered Ibanez’s remaining arguments and find
them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Claims Court’s
decision is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1113 Document: 38 Page: 5 Filed: 12/12/2024

-- 5 of 5 --