Case: 22-1384 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 04/21/2022
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MANETIRONY CLERVRAIN, BRANDAKO, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1384
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:21-cv-01919-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank
Horn.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Manetirony Clervrain and Brandako, Inc. filed a com-
plaint at the United States Court of Federal Claims for
what they say were “serious crimes” and violations of “civil
rights” and unspecified constitutional rights appearing to
Case: 22-1384 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 04/21/2022
2 CLERVRAIN v. US
relate to Mr. Clervrain’s deportation process. * The Court
of Federal Claims granted the United States’s motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants now appeal and
move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The court finds that summary disposition is appropri-
ate because there is no substantial question regarding the
outcome of this appeal. See Joshua v. United States, 17
F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Tucker Act limits the
Court of Federal Claims’s jurisdiction only to money dam-
ages against the United States based on sources of substan-
tive law that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating
compensation by the Federal Government.” United States
v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) (internal quota-
tion marks and citation omitted). Although it is difficult to
decipher the exact nature of the allegations, what is clear
is that appellants’ complaint did not identify any source of
substantive law that creates the right to monetary dam-
ages against the federal government.
To the extent that appellants attempted to sue under
42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, or 1983 when their complaint re-
ferred to the “Civil Rights Acts,” the Court of Federal
Claims was clearly correct that it did not have jurisdiction
over such claims because nothing in those provisions is
fairly read to impose a money-mandating obligation on the
United States. Maxberry v. United States, 722 F. App’x
* Mr. Clervrain has filed a number of identical or
similar suits in district courts throughout the country. See,
e.g., Clervrain v. Lee, No. 3:20-cv-548-TAV-DCP, 2021 WL
141793, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 14, 2021); Clervrain v. Pom-
peo, No. 4:20-cv-555-SRC, 2020 WL 7714613, at *1 (E.D.
Mo. Dec. 28, 2020); Clervrain v. Washington, No. 2:20-cv-
5706, 2020 WL 7318096, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 11, 2020);
Clervrain v. Wilson, No. 2:20-cv-2061, 2020 WL 1977392,
at *2 (W.D. Ark. Apr. 24, 2020).
Case: 22-1384 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 04/21/2022
CLERVRAIN v. US 3
997, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citations omitted); Coleman v.
United States, 635 F. App’x 875, 877–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
May v. United States, 534 F. App’x 930, 933–34 (Fed. Cir.
2013). Nor does the Court of Federal Claims have jurisdic-
tion to address allegations of violations of criminal codes.
Joshua, 17 F.3d at 379–80. The Court of Federal Claims
likewise does not have jurisdiction to review denial of the
benefits mentioned in the complaint: benefits for unem-
ployment or under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (“SNAP”). See May v. United States, 56 F. App’x
492, 493 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also 7 U.S.C. § 2020 (provid-
ing for state government administration of SNAP benefits).
Because the complaint clearly failed to raise any claim
within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, we
summarily affirm its dismissal of the complaint.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The judgment of the United States Court of Federal
Claims is affirmed.
(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
April 21, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court