N OTE : This o rder is non precedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

WILLIAM OSCAR HARRIS
, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee,

AND

CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., THOMAS R. KANE

AND HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Defendants.

______________________

2013

- 5119

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 13

- CV

- 0019, Judge Francis M. Allegra.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________ P ER C URIAM

.

O R D E R
William Oscar Harris appeals the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims

, dismissing his Case: 13-5119 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 04/16/2014HARRIS v. US 2

complaint for lack of jurisdiction. For the following re asons, we grant the government’s motion to summarily affirm.

B ACKGROUND Mr. Harris, a federal prisoner, brought this suit in the Court of Federal Claims against the United States and several current and former officials of the Federal Bureau of Prisoners . Mr. Harris’s complaint alleged that he had entered into a contract with the government through an offer to pay $40 million dollars to the then

- Secretary of the Treas ury in e xchange for the discharge of “certain federal obligations owing to the United States” resulting fr om his prior criminal co nvictions

. Harris v. United States , 13

- cv

- 0019 at 1 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 9, 2013), ECF No. 1. Mr. Harris further alleged that the government’ s refusal to perform its obligations amount to a breach of the alleged contract
, entitling him to $40 million dollars and specific performance.
On June 6, 2013, the Court of Federal Claim s granted the government’s motion to dismiss Mr. Harris’s claims for lack of jurisdiction, as they were not “grounded in a contract, a money

- manda ting statute, or the ‘ taking s clause ’ of the Fifth Amendment. ” Harris v. United States

, No. 13

- 19C, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cl. June 6, 2013) , ECF No. 18 ). Mr. Harris filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to RCFC 60(b)(1) and (6)

. The court denied that motion

, determining that there was no clear error of judgment or abuse of discre tion in its original decision

. Mr. Harris appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

D ISCUSSION

The Tucker Act limit s the jurisdiction of the C ourt of Federal Claims to claims for money damages against the United States based on sources of substantive law that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by Case: 13-5119 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 04/16/2014HARRIS v. US 3

the Federal Government

. ” United States v. Navajo Nation , 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) . Here, it is clear that Mr. Harris failed to demonstrate that the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction over his case.

T he court correctly held that the statutory and reg ulatory provisions cited in Mr. Harris’s complaint, namely, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, D.C. Code § 28:3

- 306

, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Administrative Remedy Program ( 28 C.F.R. § 542.10

- 18 )

, do not g ive the Court of Federal Claims jur isdiction

. See generally Parker v. United States , 280 Fed. Appx. 957, 958 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (“Finally

, to the extent Mr. Parker intended to bring a claim under the Privacy Act, the Court of Federal Claims is not the proper forum for such action.” )

. Mr. Harris contend s that the court had jurisdic tion over his complaint based on the existence of a contract between him and the federal government. But w e discern

no error in the Court of Federal Claims’ conclusion that the facts as alleged were in sufficient to establish either an
act ual or an implied

- in

- fact contract

. As the go vernment correctly points out in its motion papers, the attachments
to Mr. Harris’s complaint , which are the basis for the contract allegation, are nothing more than a series of documents signed by Mr. Harris and addressed to various government officials. Mr. Harris has not made a substa ntial claim of a contract.
Nor can we say that the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction over his complaint based on 9 U.S.C. § 3. That statutory provision merely requires federal courts to stay litigation pending arbitration proceedings

. Because the Court of Federal Claims’ decision was clearly correct, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Joshua v. United States , 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Summary affirmance of a case “is appropriate, inte r alia

, when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a Case: 13-5119 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 04/16/2014HARRIS v. US 4

matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.”).
Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The United States’ motion is granted. The jud gment of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.
(2) All other pending motions are denied as moot.
(3 ) Each side shall bear its own costs.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

s28 Case: 13-5119 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 04/16/2014