Case: 24-1007 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 03/12/2024
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________
JAMES LA VELL HARRIS, AKA SMILEY JAMES HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________
2024-1007 ______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:23-cv-00510-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow. ______________________
Decided: March 12, 2024 ______________________
JAMES LA VELL HARRIS, Clearlake, CA, pro se.
BORISLAV KUSHNIR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. ______________________
Before PROST, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. Case: 24-1007 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 03/12/2024
PER CURIAM. James La Vell Harris, a.k.a. Smiley James Harris, ap- peals from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We affirm. BACKGROUND Mr. Harris filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims asserting subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The complaint alleged that, as a result of various cases in Lake County, Califor- nia, Mr. Harris was unjustly convicted and imprisoned for violating California law regarding driving without a license (or driving under a suspended one). It further alleged, cit- ing 8 U.S.C. § 1481, that these unjust convictions and im- prisonments resulted from a failure to train officers on how to protect the rights of expatriated persons, and it sought damages for these convictions and imprisonments under 28 U.S.C. § 1495. The complaint also referenced Mr. Har- ris’s “claims of ‘copyright infringement’” under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) and sought related damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). SApp’x 6. 1 And it referenced the alleged seizure of certain of his property by the police department of Clear- lake, California. SApp’x 13–15. The government moved to dismiss the complaint, argu- ing that it stated no claim within the Court of Federal Claims’ limited subject-matter jurisdiction. Before evalu- ating the complaint, the Court of Federal Claims recog- nized that, as a pro se plaintiff, Mr. Harris’s filings should be construed liberally and held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Harris v. United States, No. 23-510, 2023 WL 4842350, at *2 (Fed. Cl.
1 “SApp’x” refers to the supplemental appendix in- cluded with the government’s informal brief. Case: 24-1007 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 03/12/2024
HARRIS v. US 3
July 28, 2023). But it also noted that this leniency does not relieve such plaintiffs of jurisdictional requirements. Id. After examining the complaint’s claims, the Court of Federal Claims concluded that none fell within its subject- matter jurisdiction. As to any claim for damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1495, the court noted that this statute provides it jurisdiction to “render judgment upon any claim for dam- ages by any person unjustly convicted of an offense against the United States and imprisoned.” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1495). It reasoned, however, that “[b]ecause Mr. Harris’s complaint challenge[d] only state convictions,” this statute did not provide it jurisdiction. Id. (emphasis added). The court also examined whether other possible claims might have fallen within its jurisdiction, but it found none. For example, although the complaint cited 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) and 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)—concern- ing copyright-infringement claims against the United States and related damages—and also attached what was described as a “Common Law Copyright notice,” the court concluded that the complaint “fail[ed] to state an infringe- ment claim against the United States.” Id. at *3 n.4. And, although the complaint had cited 8 U.S.C. § 1481—“a stat- ute that identifies various acts a [U.S.] national can take to relinquish his or her nationality”—the court concluded that, because this statute does not mandate compensation by the United States, it does not supply Tucker Act juris- diction. See id. at *3. Finally, although the complaint ap- peared to assert claims against private or state entities— possibly in relation to, among other things, the property- seizure allegations—the Court of Federal Claims con- cluded that it lacked jurisdiction over these claims against such nonfederal entities. See id. at *2. The court therefore granted the government’s motion and dismissed the com- plaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at *3. Mr. Harris timely appealed. We have jurisdiction un- der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). Case: 24-1007 Document: 13 Page: 4 Filed: 03/12/2024
DISCUSSION We review de novo the Court of Federal Claims’ dismis- sal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Waltner v. United States, 679 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited juris- diction. The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), gives it ju- risdiction over nontort “claims for money damages against the United States” founded upon “any Act of Congress.” See Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc in relevant part) (cleaned up). To come within the court’s Tucker Act jurisdiction, however, “a plaintiff must identify a separate source of substantive law that creates the right to money damages”—in other words, a source that is “money-mandating.” Id. We see no error in the Court of Federal Claims’ conclu- sion that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over any claim in Mr. Harris’s complaint. For example, although the complaint sought damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1495 for al- legedly unjust convictions and imprisonments, that statute applies to convictions of federal crimes, not state crimes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1495 (“The [U.S.] Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim for damages by any person unjustly convicted of an offense against the United States and imprisoned.” (emphasis added)); see also Machulas v. United States, 621 F. App’x 629, 632 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (nonprecedential) (concluding that the Court of Federal Claims lacked 28 U.S.C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Case: 24-1007 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 03/12/2024
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________
JAMES LA VELL HARRIS, AKA SMILEY JAMES HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________
2024-1007 ______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:23-cv-00510-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow. ______________________
Decided: March 12, 2024 ______________________
JAMES LA VELL HARRIS, Clearlake, CA, pro se.
BORISLAV KUSHNIR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. ______________________
Before PROST, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. Case: 24-1007 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 03/12/2024
PER CURIAM. James La Vell Harris, a.k.a. Smiley James Harris, ap- peals from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We affirm. BACKGROUND Mr. Harris filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims asserting subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The complaint alleged that, as a result of various cases in Lake County, Califor- nia, Mr. Harris was unjustly convicted and imprisoned for violating California law regarding driving without a license (or driving under a suspended one). It further alleged, cit- ing 8 U.S.C. § 1481, that these unjust convictions and im- prisonments resulted from a failure to train officers on how to protect the rights of expatriated persons, and it sought damages for these convictions and imprisonments under 28 U.S.C. § 1495. The complaint also referenced Mr. Har- ris’s “claims of ‘copyright infringement’” under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) and sought related damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). SApp’x 6. 1 And it referenced the alleged seizure of certain of his property by the police department of Clear- lake, California. SApp’x 13–15. The government moved to dismiss the complaint, argu- ing that it stated no claim within the Court of Federal Claims’ limited subject-matter jurisdiction. Before evalu- ating the complaint, the Court of Federal Claims recog- nized that, as a pro se plaintiff, Mr. Harris’s filings should be construed liberally and held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Harris v. United States, No. 23-510, 2023 WL 4842350, at *2 (Fed. Cl.
1 “SApp’x” refers to the supplemental appendix in- cluded with the government’s informal brief. Case: 24-1007 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 03/12/2024
HARRIS v. US 3
July 28, 2023). But it also noted that this leniency does not relieve such plaintiffs of jurisdictional requirements. Id. After examining the complaint’s claims, the Court of Federal Claims concluded that none fell within its subject- matter jurisdiction. As to any claim for damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1495, the court noted that this statute provides it jurisdiction to “render judgment upon any claim for dam- ages by any person unjustly convicted of an offense against the United States and imprisoned.” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1495). It reasoned, however, that “[b]ecause Mr. Harris’s complaint challenge[d] only state convictions,” this statute did not provide it jurisdiction. Id. (emphasis added). The court also examined whether other possible claims might have fallen within its jurisdiction, but it found none. For example, although the complaint cited 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) and 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)—concern- ing copyright-infringement claims against the United States and related damages—and also attached what was described as a “Common Law Copyright notice,” the court concluded that the complaint “fail[ed] to state an infringe- ment claim against the United States.” Id. at *3 n.4. And, although the complaint had cited 8 U.S.C. § 1481—“a stat- ute that identifies various acts a [U.S.] national can take to relinquish his or her nationality”—the court concluded that, because this statute does not mandate compensation by the United States, it does not supply Tucker Act juris- diction. See id. at *3. Finally, although the complaint ap- peared to assert claims against private or state entities— possibly in relation to, among other things, the property- seizure allegations—the Court of Federal Claims con- cluded that it lacked jurisdiction over these claims against such nonfederal entities. See id. at *2. The court therefore granted the government’s motion and dismissed the com- plaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at *3. Mr. Harris timely appealed. We have jurisdiction un- der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). Case: 24-1007 Document: 13 Page: 4 Filed: 03/12/2024
DISCUSSION We review de novo the Court of Federal Claims’ dismis- sal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Waltner v. United States, 679 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited juris- diction. The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), gives it ju- risdiction over nontort “claims for money damages against the United States” founded upon “any Act of Congress.” See Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc in relevant part) (cleaned up). To come within the court’s Tucker Act jurisdiction, however, “a plaintiff must identify a separate source of substantive law that creates the right to money damages”—in other words, a source that is “money-mandating.” Id. We see no error in the Court of Federal Claims’ conclu- sion that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over any claim in Mr. Harris’s complaint. For example, although the complaint sought damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1495 for al- legedly unjust convictions and imprisonments, that statute applies to convictions of federal crimes, not state crimes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1495 (“The [U.S.] Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim for damages by any person unjustly convicted of an offense against the United States and imprisoned.” (emphasis added)); see also Machulas v. United States, 621 F. App’x 629, 632 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (nonprecedential) (concluding that the Court of Federal Claims lacked 28 U.S.C. § 1495 jurisdiction because the plaintiff “was convicted of a state crime, not a federal crime”). As the Court of Federal Claims noted here, the complaint “challenge[d] only state convictions,” Harris, 2023 WL 4842350, at *2 (emphasis added), and Mr. Harris does not dispute that any convic- tion or imprisonment identified in the complaint resulted from violations of state, as opposed to federal, law. We therefore affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of any claim that was based on 28 U.S.C. § 1495. Case: 24-1007 Document: 13 Page: 5 Filed: 03/12/2024
HARRIS v. US 5
We also see no error in the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of any claim that was based on 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) or 8 U.S.C. § 1481. As to the former, the court correctly noted that, although the complaint mentioned this statutory provision (and another regarding related damages), it never alleged that the government infringed a copyright. And, as to the latter, Mr. Harris has not shown how this statute is money-mandating, and we see nothing suggesting that it is. We therefore affirm the Court of Fed- eral Claims’ dismissal of any claims that were based on these statutory provisions. Finally, to the extent the complaint included a claim against private or state entities (for example, regarding the alleged seizure of Mr. Harris’s property), the Court of Fed- eral Claims correctly dismissed any such claim under these circumstances. See Langan v. United States, 812 F. App’x 982, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (nonprecedential) (affirming Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of any claims against private or state entities). CONCLUSION We have considered Mr. Harris’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.