NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition
Is not citable as precedent. It is a public record.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
04-5095
GEORGE LEE ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
___________________________
DECIDED: May 5, 2005
___________________________
Before RADER, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
RADER, Circuit Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed George L. Alexander’s
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Alexander v. United States, No. 04-472-
C (Fed. Cl. Apr. 26, 2004). Because the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed the
complaint, and because Mr. Alexander did not request relief within the power of this
court to grant, this court affirms.
II. BACKGROUND
On March 23, 2004, Mr. Alexander, now incarcerated, filed the first of five
complaints with the United States Court of Federal Claims using a standardized form
that the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois created for
prisoners representing themselves. Mr. Alexander had previously filed a series of pro
se complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, after
which the district court refused to accept further filings without approval of the Executive
Committee in charge of assigning cases. Nevertheless, Mr. Alexander continued to file
further complaints with the district court and with the Court of Federal Claims. One of
these led to this appeal.
Mr. Alexander indicated on the standardized complaint form that he was seeking
relief from officials of the State of Illinois for deprivation of rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the United States Constitution. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). Mr.
Alexander did not set forth the acts that he alleges constituted constitutional violations,
but instead responded “no occurrence” in the appropriate section of the complaint form.
He did, however, present a set of facts that appear to have occurred in 1965. As far as
can be determined from the claim form, no action of state officials was implicated in his
statement of facts.
The Court of Federal Claims acted of its own accord before any response from
the Government and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The
trial court reasoned that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate claims against state officials
under section 1983 or the Constitution that would not create a substantive right to
monetary damages against the Federal Government. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)
(2000) (“The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render
judgment upon any claim against the United States.”) (emphasis added); United States
v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216 (1983) (requiring that another source of law create a
substantive right to monetary compensation for the Court of Federal Claims to have
04-5095 2
jurisdiction). Furthermore, although the court construed Mr. Alexander’s complaint on
its face, the court also considered whether the complaint might be interpreted as a
request for review of the judgment leading to his incarceration. Interpreted as such, the
court found it lacked jurisdiction to review the decision of the federal district courts or
state courts. This appeal followed.
III. ANALYSIS
Mr. Alexander appeals the decision of the Court of Federal Claims. In addition,
he requests that this court appoint an attorney for him, or grant him $600,000.
Dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a complaint for lack of jurisdiction is
a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Core Concepts of Fla., Inc. v. United
States, 327 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The jurisdiction of the Court of Federal
Claims is governed by the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491. The Tucker Act does not
create enforceable substantive rights against the United States for money damages, but
requires instead a substantive right that mandates monetary compensation from the
Federal Government in another source of law. Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 216. Neither Mr.
Alexander’s original complaint, nor his complaint on appeal, sets forth any substantive
law mandating compensation by the Federal Government. In addition, the Court of
Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over section 1983 claims. Blassingame v.
United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 504, 505 (1995), aff’d, 73 F.3d 379 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert.
denied 517 U.S. 1237 (1996). Nor does that court have jurisdiction over appeals from
decisions of the federal district courts. Vereda Ltd. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367,
1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir.
04-5095 3
1994)). Therefore, the Court of Federal Claims was correct in its ruling that it had no
jurisdiction to hear Mr. Alexander’s complaint.
04-5095 4