Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01857/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01857-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 528
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ROBERT J. MERCER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1857

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:16-cv-00089-NBF, Senior Judge Nancy B. 

Firestone. 

______________________ 

Decided: August 8, 2016

______________________ 

ROBERT J. MERCER, Coleman, FL, pro se.

RICHARD PAUL SCHROEDER, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR., DONALD E. KINNER. 

______________________ 

Case: 16-1857 Document: 25-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/08/2016
2 MERCER v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Robert Mercer appeals the Court of Federal Claims’s

dismissal of his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Mercer 

v. United States, No. 16-89C, 2016 WL 690472 (Fed. Cl. 

Feb. 19, 2016) (“Order”). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Mercer is incarcerated in a Florida federal correctional institution. Relevant to this appeal, he filed a 

complaint in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that 

the United States District Court for the Middle District of 

Florida is not an Article III court, and as such, lacked 

jurisdiction to criminally sentence him. He also sought 

relief based on an alleged violation of his Fifth Amendment right to due process in connection with his criminal 

defense attorney’s failure to raise this alleged jurisdictional issue. 

The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Mercer’s 

complaint because it “has no jurisdiction to review the 

merits of a decision rendered by a federal district court.” 

Order, 2016 WL 690472, at *1 (quoting Shinnecock Indian 

Nation v. United States, 782 F.3d 1345, 1352 (Fed. Cir.

2015)). The court also disposed of Mr. Mercer’s due 

process claim, noting that “[t]he law is well settled that 

the Due Process clauses of both the Fifth and Fourteenth 

Amendments do not mandate the payment of money and 

thus do not provide a cause of action under the Tucker 

Act.” Id. at *2 (alteration in original) (quoting Dourandish v. United States, 629 F. App’x 966, 970 (Fed. Cir. 

2015) (quoting Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114, 

1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013))). Finally, the court noted that 

Mr. Mercer’s complaint could be read as alleging a Sixth 

Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The 

court determined that like the Due Process Clauses, the 

Sixth Amendment does not obligate the United States to 

pay money damages, and thus also fails to confer jurisdiction over Mr. Mercer’s claims. Order, 2016 WL 690472, at 

Case: 16-1857 Document: 25-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/08/2016
MERCER v. US 3

*2 n.3 (citing Smith v. United States, 36 F. App’x 444, 446 

(Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal citation omitted)). 

Mr. Mercer appeals the dismissal to this court, and we 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

We review de novo whether the Court of Federal 

Claims properly dismissed a claim for lack of jurisdiction. 

M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 

1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction over his complaint. Sanders v. United States, 252 

F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

We agree that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Mercer’s claims. First, the Court of 

Federal Claims properly held that it lacks jurisdiction to 

consider claims amounting to “collateral attacks” on 

criminal convictions. Order, 2016 WL 690472, at *1

(quoting Judd v. United States, No. 15-586C, 2015 WL 

6684540, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 30, 2015) (internal citation 

omitted)). That is because “the Court of Federal Claims 

does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of district courts or the clerks of district courts relating to 

proceedings before those courts.” Joshua v. United States, 

17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Second, “to invoke jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 

a plaintiff must identify a contractual relationship, constitutional provision, statute, or regulation that provides a 

substantive right to money damages.” Khan v. United 

States, 201 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also

28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). As we have held, however, “the 

Due Process clauses of both the Fifth and Fourteenth 

Amendments do not mandate the payment of money and 

thus do not provide a cause of action under the Tucker 

Act.” Smith, 709 F.3d at 1116. Accordingly, the Court of 

Federal Claims properly determined that it lacks jurisdicCase: 16-1857 Document: 25-2 Page: 3 Filed: 08/08/2016
4 MERCER v. US

tion over Mr. Mercer’s due process argument. To the 

extent Mr. Mercer attempted to raise a claim under the 

Sixth Amendment of ineffective assistance of counsel, the 

Court of Federal Claims likewise lacks jurisdiction because the Sixth Amendment does not mandate the payment of money damages by the United States. Smith, 36 

F. App’x at 446. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Mercer’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. Because the Court of 

Federal Claims properly dismissed Mr. Mercer’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-1857 Document: 25-2 Page: 4 Filed: 08/08/2016