Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05080/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05080-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dean Allen Cochrun
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DEAN ALLEN COCHRUN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5080

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 15-137C, Senior Judge Francis M. Allegra. 

______________________ 

Decided: October 13, 2015

______________________ 

DEAN ALLEN COCHRUN, Sioux Falls, SD, pro se. 

JEFFREY D. KLINGMAN, 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., SCOTT 

D. AUSTIN. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-5080 Document: 22-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/13/2015
2 COCHRUN V. UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM. 

Dean Allen Cochrun (“Cochrun”) appeals from the 

final decision of the United States Court of Federal 

Claims (the “Claims Court”) dismissing his complaint for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Cochrun v. United 

States, No. 15-137C (Fed. Cl. Feb. 13, 2015) (“Final Order”). Because the Claims Court did not err in dismissing 

Cochrun’s complaint, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

In 2010, Cochrun pleaded guilty to kidnapping in violation of South Dakota Codified Laws § 22-19-1 in the 

County Court of Meade County, South Dakota. Cochrun 

is currently incarcerated at the South Dakota State 

Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. On February 

11, 2015, Cochrun filed a complaint in the Claims Court

seeking $50,000 per year in damages from the United 

States for “unjust conviction and subsequent false incarceration.” Gov’t app. at 3. His complaint alleges that he is 

innocent and that his continued confinement is therefore 

unlawful. 

The Claims Court dismissed Cochrun’s complaint on 

February 13, 2015, concluding sua sponte that it did not 

have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Cochrun’s 

allegations because it cannot review decisions rendered by 

state courts. 

Cochrun timely appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

We review the Claims Court’s decision to dismiss the 

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. 

Waltner v. United States, 679 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 

2012). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing 

subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the 

evidence. Brandt v. United States, 710 F.3d 1369, 1373 

Case: 15-5080 Document: 22-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/13/2015
COCHRUN V. UNITED STATES 3

(Fed. Cir. 2013). A litigant’s pro se status does not relieve 

him of these jurisdictional requirements. Kelley v. Sec’y, 

United States Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. 

Cir. 1987). 

Cochrun is attempting to bring this suit under 

28 U.S.C. § 1495, which allows the Claims Court to adjudicate claims “for damages by any person unjustly convicted of an offense against the United States and 

imprisoned.” (emphasis added). That the offense must 

have been “against the United States” means that a 

plaintiff must have been convicted of violating federal 

law, rather than state law. Williams v. United States, No. 

14-535C, 2015 WL 452347, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 26, 2015). 

Because Cochrun was convicted of violating the laws of 

South Dakota, and was not convicted of violating federal 

law, he cannot sue under § 1495. To the extent that 

Cochrun is alleging that he is factually innocent of the 

charge to which he pleaded guilty, the Claims Court does 

not have the jurisdiction to review state court convictions. 

Spaan v. United States, 208 F. App’x 898, 899 (Fed. Cir. 

2006).1

Moreover, to state a claim under § 1495 a plaintiff 

must provide proof that “[h]is conviction has been reversed or set aside.” Freeman v. United States, 568 

F. App’x 892, 894 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2513). That proof may only be in the form of “a certifi1 In his informal opening brief, Cochrun argues that 

he was kidnapped in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201 and 

that therefore the Claims Court had jurisdiction. Because 

he did not present that claim in his complaint, it is 

deemed waived. Even if properly presented, that allegation is insufficient to confer jurisdiction because the 

Claims Court cannot consider alleged violations of the 

criminal code. See Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 

380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

 

Case: 15-5080 Document: 22-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/13/2015
4 COCHRUN V. UNITED STATES

cate of innocence from the court that ordered such a 

reversal or a presidential pardon.” Id. Cochrun’s complaint does not contain such evidence and, therefore, the 

Claims Court did not err in dismissing his complaint. 

In his informal opening brief, Cochrun also alleges 

various violations of his constitutional rights and that he 

has a contract with the United States for $10,000,000. 

Because he did not raise those allegations in his complaint, they are not properly before us and are deemed 

waived. Casa de Cambio Comdiv S.A., de C.V. v. United 

States, 291 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Cochrun’s remaining arguments, 

but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, 

the decision of the Claims Court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

 No costs.

Case: 15-5080 Document: 22-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/13/2015