NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MANETIRONY CLERVRAIN, BRANDAKO, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2022-1384

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:21-cv-01919-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank 

Horn.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Manetirony Clervrain and Brandako, Inc. filed a complaint at the United States Court of Federal Claims for 

what they say were “serious crimes” and violations of “civil 

rights” and unspecified constitutional rights appearing to 

Case: 22-1384 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 04/21/2022
2 CLERVRAIN v. US

relate to Mr. Clervrain’s deportation process.* The Court 

of Federal Claims granted the United States’s motion to 

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants now appeal and 

move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

The court finds that summary disposition is appropriate because there is no substantial question regarding the 

outcome of this appeal. See Joshua v. United States, 17 

F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Tucker Act limits the

Court of Federal Claims’s jurisdiction only to money damages against the United States based on sources of substantive law that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating 

compensation by the Federal Government.” United States 

v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although it is difficult to 

decipher the exact nature of the allegations, what is clear 

is that appellants’ complaint did not identify any source of 

substantive law that creates the right to monetary damages against the federal government. 

To the extent that appellants attempted to sue under 

42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, or 1983 when their complaint referred to the “Civil Rights Acts,” the Court of Federal 

Claims was clearly correct that it did not have jurisdiction 

over such claims because nothing in those provisions is 

fairly read to impose a money-mandating obligation on the 

United States. Maxberry v. United States, 722 F. App’x 

* Mr. Clervrain has filed a number of identical or 

similar suits in district courts throughout the country. See,

e.g., Clervrain v. Lee, No. 3:20-cv-548-TAV-DCP, 2021 WL 

141793, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 14, 2021); Clervrain v. Pompeo, No. 4:20-cv-555-SRC, 2020 WL 7714613, at *1 (E.D. 

Mo. Dec. 28, 2020); Clervrain v. Washington, No. 2:20-cv5706, 2020 WL 7318096, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 11, 2020);

Clervrain v. Wilson, No. 2:20-cv-2061, 2020 WL 1977392,

at *2 (W.D. Ark. Apr. 24, 2020).

Case: 22-1384 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 04/21/2022
CLERVRAIN v. US 3

997, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citations omitted); Coleman v. 

United States, 635 F. App’x 875, 877–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015); 

May v. United States, 534 F. App’x 930, 933–34 (Fed. Cir. 

2013). Nor does the Court of Federal Claims have jurisdiction to address allegations of violations of criminal codes. 

Joshua, 17 F.3d at 379–80. The Court of Federal Claims

likewise does not have jurisdiction to review denial of the 

benefits mentioned in the complaint: benefits for unemployment or under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (“SNAP”). See May v. United States, 56 F. App’x 

492, 493 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also 7 U.S.C. § 2020 (providing for state government administration of SNAP benefits). 

Because the complaint clearly failed to raise any claim 

within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, we 

summarily affirm its dismissal of the complaint. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The judgment of the United States Court of Federal 

Claims is affirmed.

(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

April 21, 2022

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

 

Case: 22-1384 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 04/21/2022