Case: 21-1631 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 01/20/2022
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DERRICK MICHAEL ALLEN, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2021-1631
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:20-cv-00793-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank
Horn.
______________________
Decided: January 20, 2022
______________________
DERRICK MICHAEL ALLEN, SR., Raleigh, NC, pro se.
JOSHUA E. KURLAND, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, ROBERT EDWARD
KIRSCHMAN, JR.
______________________
Before LOURIE, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
Case: 21-1631 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 01/20/2022
2 ALLEN v. US
PER CURIAM.
Derrick Michael Allen, Sr. appeals a decision of the
United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his com-
plaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because
Mr. Allen’s claims are outside the scope of the Court of Fed-
eral Claims’ jurisdiction, we affirm.
I
Mr. Allen filed this suit in the Court of Federal Claims
seeking compensation for alleged wrongdoing by the
United States Postal Service. His complaint details several
customer-service type claims against the USPS. In partic-
ular, he alleges that he was improperly denied a refund for
a post office box he had closed, did not receive stamps he
had ordered, was not permitted to link an online account to
a P.O. box without a signature on file—which he refused to
provide—and had his mail mishandled or withheld. Mr. Al-
len argued that he was owed compensation for these
wrongs under 39 U.S.C. § 409(h).
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Allen’s
complaint, holding that none of his claims were within its
jurisdiction. Allen v. United States, No. 20-793C, slip op.
at 9 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 6, 2021) (Decision); see also SAppx12. 1
The court concluded that Mr. Allen’s complaint failed to
identify any money-mandating source of substantive law
that would bring his claims within its jurisdiction. It fur-
ther found that his allegations of mishandling and with-
holding of mail sounded in tort and therefore fell outside
the scope of the court’s jurisdiction.
Mr. Allen appeals. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
1 SAppx refers to the supplemental appendix at-
tached to the Appellee’s brief.
Case: 21-1631 Document: 28 Page: 3 Filed: 01/20/2022
ALLEN v. US 3
II
We review the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Trusted Integra-
tion, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir.
2011). As the plaintiff, Mr. Allen bears the burden of estab-
lishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
Brandt v. United States, 710 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir.
2013). Although we give pro se plaintiffs more latitude in
their pleadings than parties represented by counsel, Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), such leniency does not
relieve them of jurisdictional requirements, Kelley v. Sec’y,
U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The Tucker Act, the source of the Court of Federal
Claims’ jurisdiction, limits jurisdiction to “claims for
money damages against the United States.” Fisher v.
United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
banc) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491). The Tucker Act alone does
not supply an independent source of action; a plaintiff
“must identify a separate source of substantive law that
creates the right to money damages.” Id. “[T]he absence of
a money-mandating source [is] fatal to the court’s jurisdic-
tion under the Tucker Act.” Id. at 1173. Furthermore, the
Act expressly precludes the Court of Federal Claims from
hearing claims that sound in tort. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1) (“The United States Court of Federal
Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon
any claim against the United States . . . for liquidated or
unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” (em-
phasis added)).
The Court of Federal Claims correctly concluded that it
lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Allen’s claims. As a basis for
relief, Mr. Allen cited 39 U.S.C. § 409(h), a statute that
governs how the Postal Service will pay a judgment against
the United States that arises out of the Postal Service’s ac-
tivities. But that statute assumes that a judgment has been
entered in the first place. And as the trial court correctly
Case: 21-1631 Document: 28 Page: 4 Filed: 01/20/2022
4 ALLEN v. US
noted, Mr. Allen “has not alleged nor demonstrated that a
judgment against the Postal Service has been entered or
that [the Court of Federal Claims] has jurisdiction to adju-
dicate [his] claims.” Decision at 8. Nothing in § 409(h) es-
tablishes a money-mandating source that meets the
jurisdictional requirements of the Tucker Act. Mr. Allen’s
allegations about the mishandling and withholding of his
mail also do not fall within the court’s jurisdiction, as those
claims sound in tort. See Blazavich v. United States, 29
Fed. Cl. 371, 374 (1993) (dismissing case arising out of neg-
ligent or tortious handling of the mail by the USPS for lack
of jurisdiction).
On appeal, Mr. Allen asserts that he entered into a con-
tract with the USPS by ordering stamps online and pur-
chasing a post office box, and that the USPS subsequently
breached this contract by failing to deliver the stamps and
providing poor customer service. Appellant’s Br., Item 4.
To establish a valid contract with the United States, three
criteria must be met: “(1) an explicit agreement with the
United States exists; (2) the agreement was executed by
someone who possessed actual authority to bind the gov-
ernment in contract; and (3) the agreement entitles the
[plaintiff] to monetary relief.” Terry v. United States, 99
Fed. Cl. 384, 391 (2011) (alteration in original) (quoting
Cottrell v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 144, 150 (1998)).
Mr. Allen does not allege facts supporting a valid contract
under these factors; rather, his claims are akin to the type
of custom service allegations that have previously failed to
meet the elements of a valid contract for Tucker Act pur-
poses. See id. at 391–92 (holding that an agreement to use
a P.O. box did not constitute a contract between the plain-
tiff and the United States).
Finally, Mr. Allen alleges an infringement of his Sev-
enth Amendment right to a jury trial. Appellant Br.,
Item 5. But the Seventh Amendment does not provide a
money-mandating source of substantive law supporting
the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction. Jaffer v. United
Case: 21-1631 Document: 28 Page: 5 Filed: 01/20/2022
ALLEN v. US 5
States, No. 95–5127, 1995 WL 592017, at *2 (Fed. Cir.
Oct. 6, 1995) (holding that a violation of the Seventh
Amendment does not “explicitly or implicitly obligate[] the
federal government to pay damages” and therefore cannot
support a claim for relief in the Court of Federal Claims).
To the extent Mr. Allen challenges the trial court’s dismis-
sal of his complaint through non-jury adjudication, subject
matter jurisdiction is a question of law to be resolved by a
judge, not a jury, and which “the court must ad-
dress . . . even sua sponte, whenever [it] come[s] to the
court’s attention.” St. Bernard Par. Gov’t v. United States,
916 F.3d 987, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Under Rule 12(h)(3) of
the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims, “[i]f the court de-
termines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdic-
tion, the court must dismiss the action.” The Court of
Federal Claims correctly determined that it lacked juris-
diction and dismissed accordingly.
III
Because Mr. Allen’s claims are outside the jurisdiction
of the Court of Federal Claims, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Allen v. United States
Combined Opinion