Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05083/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05083-0/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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 ______________________ 

WILLIAM OSCAR HARRIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2014-5083

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:13-cv-00824-LJB, Judge Lynn J. Bush.

______________________ 

Decided: March 6, 2015

______________________ 

WILLIAM OSCAR HARRIS, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.

WILLIAM JAMES GRIMALDI, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

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

represented by STUART F. DELERY, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN,

JR., STEVEN J. GILLINGHAM. 

______________________ 

Case: 14-5083 Document: 28-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/06/2015
2 HARRIS v. US

PER CURIAM. 

William O. Harris appeals a decision of the United 

States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We 

affirm.

BACKGROUND

On July 2, 2004, a district court convicted Mr. Harris 

of conspiracy to produce and pass fraudulent money 

orders purporting to be issued by the United States 

government. He was also held in contempt for refusing to 

refrain from sending fraudulent and threatening documents to, inter alia, the judge in his criminal case.

On October 21, 2013, Mr. Harris filed a complaint in 

the Claims Court alleging he assigned to the United 

States Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) a “proper 

Invoice” in the sum of $405,388,872. The Invoice, he 

alleged, was a legally enforceable contract with a written 

arbitration provision.

This complaint was the third in a series of similar 

complaints. The prior two relied on the same types of false 

documents that led to his contempt and were dismissed 

by the Claims Court.

On November 14, 2013, the government moved to 

dismiss in this case. Mr. Harris responded to the motion 

to dismiss and filed a motion to stay the claim pending 

arbitration. The Claims Court denied the motion to stay.

Mr. Harris appealed, but we dismissed the appeal because 

there was not yet a final decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(3). We also rejected the contention that Mr. 

Harris could appeal under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 

U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(A), stating that “[t]here is no evidence 

that a contract containing an arbitration clause is at issue 

here.” Harris v. United States, No. 2014-5044 (Fed. Cir. 

Apr. 23, 2014).

Case: 14-5083 Document: 28-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/06/2015
HARRIS v. US 3

On April 16, 2014, the Claims Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss on the ground that it had no 

subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint contained no non-frivolous allegation. Mr. Harris appeals. We 

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

DISCUSSION

Mr. Harris’s argument seems to be that, because Mr. 

Harris unilaterally sent a document alleged to be an 

“Invoice” to the Treasury, a contract with an arbitration 

provision was established with the government.1 We see 

no error in the Claims Court’s conclusion that the relevant document is nothing more than an “unsubstantiated 

and apparently fabricated ‘Invoice’ . . . .” App. 7. There is 

again no sufficient allegation of an enforceable contract 

with an arbitration clause.

Nor did the government “admit,” as Mr. Harris 

claims, that there was a legally enforceable contract with 

arbitration provisions by not responding to Mr. Harris’s 

requests for admissions. The government responded to the 

requests by moving for a protective order. As a result, the 

Claims Court stayed discovery.

Frivolous appeals such as this one may be dismissed

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Pillay v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir.

1995) (court has “inherent authority” to dismiss an appeal 

as frivolous when it “presents no arguably meritorious 

issue”). Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appel1 The complaint alleged: “Plaintiff assigned to the 

Treasury a proper Invoice, a negotiable instrument, to 

setoff all federal obligations ow[ed]” and because “the 

Defendant has dishonored the money mandating requirement within this Assignment,” the “Plaintiff is 

entitled to the . . . proceeds of the assigned proper Invoice . . . .” App. 14.

 

Case: 14-5083 Document: 28-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/06/2015
4 HARRIS v. US

late Procedure, sanctions may be imposed for frivolous 

appeals, even if the litigant is pro se. See Finch v. Hughes 

Aircraft Co., 926 F.2d 1574, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Any 

future such frivolous appeals from Mr. Harris may result 

in sanctions.

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-5083 Document: 28-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/06/2015