Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05014/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05014-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 515
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WILLIAM DEAN CARPENTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5014

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:14-cv-00836-TCW, Judge Thomas C. 

Wheeler. 

______________________ 

Decided: February 6, 2015

______________________ 

WILLIAM DEAN CARPENTER, Oklahoma City, OK, pro 

se. 

DAVID ALAN LEVITT, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., 

FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-5014 Document: 20-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/06/2015
2 CARPENTER v. U.S.

Before TARANTO, CLEVENGER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

William D. Carpenter, a former federal prisoner, filed 

suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims, naming

the United States and various current and former federal 

officers as defendants and seeking damages and a declaration that his incarceration was invalid. Because the 

Court of Federal Claims properly determined that it did 

not have jurisdiction to adjudicate Mr. Carpenter’s claims, 

we affirm.

BACKGROUND

In his complaint, Mr. Carpenter alleged that his confinement following a guilty plea was unlawful because 

Congress failed to comply with various provisions of 

Article I of the U.S. Constitution when it passed 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3231, which grants United States district courts exclusive jurisdiction over federal offenses. Mr. Carpenter also 

alleged that his confinement violated the Fifth, Eighth, 

Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. 

The Court of Federal Claims held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims. It concluded that 

the constitutional provisions invoked by Mr. Carpenter 

are not money-mandating, as would be required here for 

jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). 

It also concluded that Mr. Carpenter’s allegations did not 

meet the standards for invoking the court’s jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1495, which covers certain damages 

claims based on unjust conviction and imprisonment. 

Mr. Carpenter timely appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) 

grants us jurisdiction over his appeal. 

DISCUSSION

Every complaint must satisfy jurisdictional requirements. See Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514 

(1868) (“Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at 

Case: 15-5014 Document: 20-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/06/2015
CARPENTER v. U.S. 3

all in any cause.”). We review de novo the dismissal of 

Mr. Carpenter’s case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Allustiarte v. United States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1351 

(Fed. Cir. 2001). We take as true all undisputed facts 

alleged and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the 

plaintiff. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–

56 (2007). We hold pro se complaints to “less stringent 

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972) (per curiam). 

Here, Mr. Carpenter invoked the Tucker Act to support jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims. That Act

is limited to claims against the United States based on 

sources of law that mandate monetary relief. See United 

States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 289–90 (2009). 

“Not every claim invoking the Constitution, a federal 

statute, or a regulation is cognizable under the Tucker 

Act. . . . [T]he claimant must demonstrate that the source 

of substantive law he relies upon ‘can fairly be interpreted 

as mandating compensation by the Federal Government 

for the damage sustained.’” United States v. Mitchell, 463 

U.S. 206, 216–17 (1983) (quoting United States v. Testan, 

424 U.S. 392, 400 (1976)). 

Mr. Carpenter’s claims are outside the Tucker Act. 

The sources of substantive law he relies on cannot be 

fairly interpreted as mandating compensation by the 

Federal Government for damage caused by their alleged 

violation. See, e.g., Trafny v. United States, 503 F.3d 

1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Eighth Amendment is not 

money mandating); LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 

1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Fifth Amendment’s Due 

Process Clause is not money mandating).

Although Mr. Carpenter’s complaint does not cite 28 

U.S.C. § 1495 as a basis for his claims, the Court of Federal Claims also considered whether that statute gave it 

jurisdiction over this case. The court correctly concluded 

Case: 15-5014 Document: 20-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/06/2015
4 CARPENTER v. U.S.

that § 1495 does not apply here. Section 1495 gives the 

Court of Federal Claims “jurisdiction to render judgment 

upon any claim for damages by any person unjustly 

convicted of an offense against the United States and 

imprisoned.” But 28 U.S.C. § 2513 states requirements 

for such a suit, making clear that the Court of Federal 

Claims may not itself review the conviction and imprisonment. The plaintiff must show that “[h]is conviction 

has been reversed or set aside on the ground that he is 

not guilty . . . or that he has been pardoned.” Id.

§ 2513(a)(1). “Proof of the requisite facts shall be by a 

certificate of the court or pardon . . . and other evidence 

thereof shall not be received.” Id. § 2513(b). Mr. Carpenter submitted neither a court-issued certificate that his 

conviction has already been reversed or set aside nor 

proof of a presidential pardon. The Court of Federal 

Claims therefore properly dismissed his claims. That 

result follows directly from sections 1495 and 2513, and it 

accords with the general principle that “the Court of 

Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to review the 

decisions of district courts.” Joshua v. United States, 17 

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

CONCLUSION

For those reasons, we affirm the decision of the Court 

of Federal Claims. 

No costs.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-5014 Document: 20-2 Page: 4 Filed: 02/06/2015