# ffiffiHffifrruAt

lln tbt @nfteU 

# $ltutes 

# [,ourt of

# ft[tru[ @[utms No. l7-1505C 

### (Filed: February 13,2018) 

### (NOT 

### TO BE 

### PUBLISHED) 

# FILED FEB

# l3 2018 .Eott*"oo.'3loP,*i, 

### MICHAEL HARRIS,

## Plaintift

UNITED STATES, Defendant.

:&{.,1.,t {.,t rt rt rt,l. {. {(,f *,t :1.,t* r.,f * {< rk :{<* * * * * *<* r<,l. rt 

### Michael Harris, 

### pro se, Los Angeles, 

### California. Melissa 

### L. Baker, 

### Trial Attorney, Commercial 

### Litigation Branch, 

### Civil Division, United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, 

### D.C., 

### for defendant. 

### With her onthe 

### motion were Chad 

### A. Readler, 

### Principal DeputyAssistant 

### Attomey General, 

### Civil Division, and Robert E. 

### Kirschman, Jr., 

### Director, and 

### Lisa 

### L. Donahue, Assistant 

### Director, Commercial 

### Litigation Branch, 

### Civil Division, United States Department 

### of Justice,Washington, D.C. 

### OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Judge. 

### Plaintifl Michael Harris, brings suit against the 

### United States 

### Attorney General and the 

### United States Postal Service, 

### alleging violations of 

### "multiple sections 

### of USC 

### Title 18," 

### including obstruction

### ofjustice. Compl. at

### 2. These allegations 

### mirror claims made 

### in anearlier case 

### Mr. Harris

### filed in this court, 17-1247C, and are accompanied 

### by contentions relating to the 

### court's disposition of that case under 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 1915. See

### Compl, 

## at2. In the 

### prior case, 

### Mr. Harris endiavored to state claims related

### to proceedings 

### in a

### California state court arising out

### of asuit he

### filed against the 

### Los Angeles Police 

### Department. See 

### Harris v. United 

### States,No' 17- 

### 1247C,2017

### WL 4249920 (Fed. 

### Cl. Sept. 

### 26, 2017).1 

### lAt the

### time the 

### prior case was dismissed, a hearing had been scheduled 

### in 

### Mr. Harris's statecase. See

### Harris,2OlT 

### WL 4249920, at

### *2 

### & n.3. The state case has since been dismissed 

### for failure to

### file proof 

### of service and

### for failure to appear at a hearing scheduled 

### for September 

### v ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )



### ?El,E 3U1,0 UEUU

## q3E6 '{0E? ,1.,I*i.,t!t{.rtrl.:1.**!Frl.tX*{.tl.,l.rt<*:t:t>1.**!t,t,l.*<rl.rl.rFrf

### In this case, the 

### court granted 

### Mr. Harris's motion to proceed in

### forma pauperis on

January 

### 4,2078. Pending before the court at this 

### juncture isthe government's 

### motion to dismiss 

### for lack 

### of subject matter 

### jurisdiction, Def.'s 

### Mot. Dismiss 

### ("Def.'s 

### Mot."), ECF 

### No. 7,

### which motion is ready

### for disposition. 

### BACKGROUND In his 

### initial suit 

### filedwith this court, 

### Mr, Harris alleged that the 

### California state courts and the Los Angeles 

### County 

### Sheriff s

### Office were 

### violating various federal 

### criminal laws 

### by preventing 

### him from receiving mail related to the case he had 

### filed in state

### court against the Los Angeles Police 

### Department. See 

### Harcis,2}l7 WL 4249920,

### **7-2. He 

### further asserted that the 

### Sfreriffs Ofhce and the state court were refusing 

### to effectuate service on the defendants 

### in his state

### action. He sought 

### "the higher of either $5,000,000 or the 

### 'current dayvalue 

### of the Adamson House 

### Museum located 

### in Malibu, 

### Califomia.'" Id. at*2 & n.4. 

### In the present case, 

### Mr. Harris alleges that the

### Attorney General 

### "did obstruct

### justice by attempting 

### to prevent 

### himself from having 

### to investigate his 

### client defendants[, the Postal Service,] 

### for violations of USC

### Title 18 as

### well asthe same 

### for [the] superior court 

### for the state 

### of 

### California." Compl.

## at}. He contends that the Postal Service 

### "obstructfed]justice by not 

### giving the claimant his 

### mail from the superior court 

### for the state

### of Califomia," Compl

.

### at2, artd 

### inut

## t[. Attomey General obstructed 

### justice by directing asubordinate attorney 

### to appear 

### in the 

### prior case 

### in this court 

### to defendthe 

### United States against his 

### complaint. See 

### Compl. 

### at2-4 

### ("1t1h. Attorney General obstructed 

### justice by deflecting the matter 

### to his 

### agent[,]

. . . a 

### commercial 

### civil attorney 

### with defendants 

### DOJ[,] to defeat any 

### efforts requiring the

### Attomey General

### to act to the 

### detiiment of his 

### client defendants[, the Postal Service], and

### to allow 

### himself to act 

### in

### violation of his oath 

### of 

### office.")' Mr. Harris also reiterates allegations he made against the 

### Califomia statecourts, arguing that they 

### too obstructed 

### justice, though he does not 

### proffer supporting 

### facts. See

### Compl. at 4-5 

### ("The 

### following applies

### to co-defendants DOJ and [the Postal Service], as

### well as

### for the 

### superiorcourt 

### forthe state 

### of 

### California:

. . . 

### [o]bstructingjustice. . . ."). 

### As a remedy, 

### Mr. Harris againrequests either $5,000,000 or anamount equal 

### to the value 

### of the Adamson House 

### Museum. Compl. at

### 3. He hasdropped his request 

### for "an order 

### ,directing the postal 

### police to investigate the

### violations of U.S.C. 

### Title 18

### section[s] 1341 and 1701 and

### turntheir dndings over 

### tothe U.S. 

### Attorney 

### for convening afederal grand

### jury for their findings 

### of indictment or dismissal or the charges

## ."' Horris, 2017 

### WL 4249920, 

### *2

### & n.5. 

### STANDARDS FOR 

### DECISION As 

### plaintiff, Mr. Harris has the burden 

### of establishing

### jurisdiction. See Reynolds v-

### Army 

### & 

### Air Force Exch.

### \erv.,846F.2d746,748 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1988). The leniency afforded 

### apro se 

### Iitigant as

### to formalities does not relieve them 

### from meeting their

### jurisdictional burden. Kelley v. 

### 15,2017. See 

### Harris 

### v. LosAngeles 

### Police 

### Dep't,No. BC665585, Case Summary available at http ://www. lacourt. org/casesumm aryI

### ui (last

### visited February 13, 20 1 8). 2Secretary, United States 

### Dep't of 

### Labor,812F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1987). This court has



### jurisdiction over 

### "any claim against the 

### United Statesfounded either upon the 

### Constitution, or any

### Act of Congress or any 

### regulation of an executive department, or upon any express 

### or implied contract 

### with the 

### United States, or

### for liquidated or 

### unliquidated damages 

### in cases not sounding 

## intort." 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 1491(a)(l)' The 

### Tucker

### Act waives sovereign 

### immunity and 

### allows a

### plaintiff to suethe 

### United States

### for money damages, 

### united states v. 

### Mitchell, 463 

### U.S. 206,212 (1983), but does 

### not provide a

### plaintiff with any substantive 

### rights, United States 

### v. Testan, 424 U 

### .5. 392,398 (1976). 

### To establish 

### jurisdiction, "a 

### plaintiff must 

### identify a separate source 

### of substantive law that creates the 

### right to money 

### damages." Fisher v. IJnited 

### States,402 F.3d 7167,1172 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2005) (en banc 

### in relevant 

### part) (citin g 

### Mitchell,463 U.S. at 216; Testan, 424 U.S. at 398). 

### Criminal statutes areoutside the scope 

### of this court's 

### jurisdiction


## . See 28 

### U.S.C' $ 1491 ;Joshua 

### v. 

### United States,17 

### F.3d 378,379 (Fed.

### Cir. 1994) 

### ("The [C]ourt [of Federal 

### Claims] has no 

### jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims whatsoever under thefederal 

### criminal code.")' 

## "lf a

### court lacks

### jurisdiction to decide the merits 

### of a case, dismissal is required as a matter 

### of 

### law." Gray 

### v. United 

### States,69 Fed. 

### Cl. 95, 93 (2005) 

### (citing Ex 

### parte 

### McCardle,T4 

### u.s. (7

### wall.) 506,

# ila (1868); Thoenv. 

### Unitedstates,T65F.2d 1110, 1116 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1985)); see also 

### RCFC 12(hX3) 

### ("If the court determines 

### a/ any time that 

### it lacks subject-matter 

### jurisdiction, the court 

### must dismiss the 

### action.") (emphasis added). 

### ANALYSIS Mr. Harris, in contending that the defendants areobstructing 

### justice, does 

### not cite 

### to a 

### particular statutory 

### provision he alleges they 

### violated. See 

### generally 

### Compl. Obstructing 

### justice,
asthe govemment submits, 

### "generally 

### [is] criminal in 

### nature." Def.'s Mot. at4; see

### also Ullman v. 

### United States,2005

### WLzi+6O1l,at *4 ("Since 

### [plaintiff s] 

### claim for obstruction 

### ofjustice cannot be

### viewed as anything but 

### criminal in nature, the 

### Court of Federal 

### Claims does not have 

### jurisdiction to consider-it on the 

### merits."). Accordingly, 

### Mr. Harris's claims alleging obstruction 

### tfjustice areoutside 

### this court's 

### jurisdiction and must be dismissed' 

### Likewise, asthe government argues, 

### Mr. Harris's claim that the Postal Services 

### failed to 

### deliver mail, also is not 

### *itnin court's 

### jurisdiction because 

### this court does not have

### jurisdiction over 

### claims sounding 

### in

### tort. See28 

### U.S.C. $ 1a91(a); 

### Def.'s Mot. at 5 

### (citing Blazavich v. 

### United 

### States,29FA. C:.371,374 

### (lgg3) ("Plaintiff s case appears

### to arise out 

### of the negligent or

### tortious handling of the 

### mail by the [Postal 

### Service],

. . .

### md, as such, should be dismissed.") (emphasis 

### omitted)). Finally, tothe extent 

### Mr. Harris intends

### to reallege 

### wrongdoing onthe part 

### of the 

### California statecourts, those claims must also be dismissed asoutside 

### this court's 

### jurisdiction. See

### United States v.

### Sherwood,3l2 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) 

### ("[I]f the 

### relief sought is against others than the 

### United States[,] the suit asto them must be ignored as beyond the

### jurisdiction of the 

### [Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims].") (internal citations omitted)'

a J

### In short, 

### Mr. Harris's complaint alleges 

### wrongdoing that can 

### only be interpreted as



### criminal or

### tortious in nature, or 

### wrongdoing on the part 

### of actors other than the 

### United States, and

### this court has no

### jurisdiction to hear those 

### claims. Because 

### Mr. Harris has

### failed to plead any facts that 

### would give rise to

### jurisdiction in this court, his 

### complaint must be dismissed' 

### CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, the 

### courtfinds that 

### it has no

### jurisdiction to consider 

### Mr. Harris's claims, and thus the

### court GRANTS the defendant's 

### motion to 

### dismiss. The 

### clerk shall enter 

### judgment 

### in accord

### with this disposition. 

### No costs 

### It is so

### ORDERED

F. 

### Lettow Judge

4