Case: 13-5119 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 04/16/2014
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
WILLIAM OSCAR HARRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee,
AND
CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., THOMAS R. KANE
AND HARLEY G. LAPPIN,
Defendants.
______________________
2013-5119
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
Claims in No. 13-CV-0019, Judge Francis M. Allegra.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
William Oscar Harris appeals the decision of the
United States Court of Federal Claims, dismissing his
Case: 13-5119 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 04/16/2014
2 HARRIS v. US
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. For the following rea-
sons, we grant the government’s motion to summarily
affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Harris, a federal prisoner, brought this suit in the
Court of Federal Claims against the United States and
several current and former officials of the Federal Bureau
of Prisoners. Mr. Harris’s complaint alleged that he had
entered into a contract with the government through an
offer to pay $40 million dollars to the then-Secretary of
the Treasury in exchange for the discharge of “certain
federal obligations owing to the United States” resulting
from his prior criminal convictions. Harris v. United
States, 13-cv-0019 at 1 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 9, 2013), ECF No. 1.
Mr. Harris further alleged that the government’s refusal
to perform its obligations amount to a breach of the
alleged contract, entitling him to $40 million dollars and
specific performance.
On June 6, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims granted
the government’s motion to dismiss Mr. Harris’s claims
for lack of jurisdiction, as they were not “grounded in a
contract, a money-mandating statute, or the ‘takings
clause’ of the Fifth Amendment.” Harris v. United States,
No. 13-19C, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cl. June 6, 2013), ECF No.
18). Mr. Harris filed a motion for relief from judgment
pursuant to RCFC 60(b)(1) and (6). The court denied that
motion, determining that there was no clear error of
judgment or abuse of discretion in its original decision.
Mr. Harris appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
DISCUSSION
The Tucker Act limits the jurisdiction of the Court of
Federal Claims to claims for money damages against the
United States based on sources of substantive law that
“can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by
Case: 13-5119 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 04/16/2014
HARRIS v. US 3
the Federal Government.” United States v. Navajo Na-
tion, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009). Here, it is clear that Mr.
Harris failed to demonstrate that the Court of Federal
Claims had jurisdiction over his case.
The court correctly held that the statutory and regu-
latory provisions cited in Mr. Harris’s complaint, namely,
5 U.S.C. § 552a, D.C. Code § 28:3-306, and the Federal
Bureau of Prisons’ Administrative Remedy Program (28
C.F.R. § 542.10-18), do not give the Court of Federal
Claims jurisdiction. See generally Parker v. United
States, 280 Fed. Appx. 957, 958 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (“Finally,
to the extent Mr. Parker intended to bring a claim under
the Privacy Act, the Court of Federal Claims is not the
proper forum for such action.”).
Mr. Harris contends that the court had jurisdiction
over his complaint based on the existence of a contract
between him and the federal government. But we discern
no error in the Court of Federal Claims’ conclusion that
the facts as alleged were insufficient to establish either an
actual or an implied-in-fact contract. As the government
correctly points out in its motion papers, the attachments
to Mr. Harris’s complaint, which are the basis for the
contract allegation, are nothing more than a series of
documents signed by Mr. Harris and addressed to various
government officials. Mr. Harris has not made a substan-
tial claim of a contract.
Nor can we say that the Court of Federal Claims had
jurisdiction over his complaint based on 9 U.S.C. § 3.
That statutory provision merely requires federal courts to
stay litigation pending arbitration proceedings.
Because the Court of Federal Claims’ decision was
clearly correct, summary affirmance is appropriate. See
Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(Summary affirmance of a case “is appropriate, inter alia,
when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a
Case: 13-5119 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 04/16/2014
4 HARRIS v. US
matter of law that no substantial question regarding the
outcome of the appeal exists.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The United States’ motion is granted. The judg-
ment of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.
(2) All other pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
s28
Harris v. United States
Combined Opinion