NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

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

______________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

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: 04/16/2014
2 HARRIS v. US

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

affirm.

BACKGROUND

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 Treasury in exchange for the discharge of “certain 

federal obligations owing to the United States” resulting 

from his prior criminal convictions. 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 Claims 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-mandating statute, or the ‘takings 

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 discretion in its original decision. 

Mr. Harris appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

The Tucker Act limits the jurisdiction of the Court 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: 04/16/2014
 HARRIS 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.

 The court correctly held that the statutory and regulatory 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 give the Court of Federal 

Claims jurisdiction. 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 contends that the court had jurisdiction 

over his complaint based on the existence of a contract 

between him and the federal government. But we discern 

no error in the Court of Federal Claims’ conclusion that

the facts as alleged were insufficient to establish either an 

actual or an implied-in-fact contract. As the government 

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 substantial 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, inter alia, 

when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a 

Case: 13-5119 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 04/16/2014
4 HARRIS v. US

matter of law that no substantial question regarding the 

outcome of the appeal exists.”).

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

 (1) The United States’ motion is granted. The judgment 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.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk of Court

s28

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