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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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
2 HARRIS v. US
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
4 HARRIS v. US
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.