N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

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

______________________ BRIAN M. BURMASTER, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2018

- 1868

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:17

- cv

- 01903

- CFL, Judge Charles F. Lettow.

______________________

Decided: August 7, 2018

______________________

B RIAN M. B URMASTER , Milwaukee, WI, pro se.

S EAN S IEKKINEN , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washin gton, DC, for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by T ARA K. H OGAN , R OBERT E DWARD K IRSCHMAN , J R ., C HAD A. R EADLER

.

______________________

Before O’M ALLEY , C LEVENGER , and S TOLL , Circuit Judges.BURMASTER v. UNITED STATES 2

P ER C URIAM

. Brian M. Burmaster appeals from the final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his pro se complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims. Bu r master v. United States , No. 1:17

- cv

- 01903, 2018 WL 1417683 (Cl. Ct. Mar. 22, 2018). Because the Claims Court correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims raised in Burmaster ’s complaint , we affirm

. B ACKGROUND On September 26, 2007, a grand jury indicted Bu rmaster for three co unts of knowingly transmitting in inte rstate and foreign commerce threats to injure people in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). Indictment, United States v. Burmaster , No. 2:07

- cr

- 00628 ( D. Utah Sept. 26, 2007), ECF No. 1. Burmaster was remanded to custod y pending trial and, while in custody, underwent a psych iatric exam. Order, United States v. Burmaster , No. 2:0 7-

cr

- 00628 (D. Utah Aug. 8, 2008), ECF No. 43 at 1

– 2. A fter that initial exam , the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Burmaster “suffer[ed] from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to assist properly in his defense.” Id. Accordingly, the district court ordered that Bu rmaster be committed to the custody of the Atto rney General and be hospitalized for treatment in a suitable facility for a reasonable period of time to determine if he could be restored to competency, but, in no event, for longer than four months. Id. at 2. In July of 2009, t he United States moved to dismiss the indictment without prejudice after the district court ultimately concluded that Burmaster’s mental competency was not readily restorable. Mot. for Leave to File Rule 48(a) Dismissal, United State s v. Burmaster , No. 2:07

- cr

- 00628 (D. Utah July 21, 2009), ECF No. 78. The district courtBURMASTER v. UNITED STATES 3

granted the dismissal and Burmaster was released from custody.

On November 22, 2013, a grand jury again indicted Burmaster for k nowingly and intentionally transmitt ing in interstate and foreign commerce, from the country of Lebanon to the State of Louisiana, threats to injure a person in violation of § 875(c). Indictment, United States v. Burmaster , No. 2: 13

- cr

- 00 265 (E.D. La. Nov. 22, 2013), ECF No. 3. Burmaster’s counsel moved for a psychiatric exam to determine whether he was competent to stand trial

, and he was again committed to a federal facility for the purposes of such an exam

. Order & Reasons, United States v. Burmaster , No. 2:13

- cr

- 00 265 (E.D. La. Oct. 21

, 2016), ECF No. 49 at 1 –2

. Doctors at the Federal Medical Center in North Carolina diagnosed Burmaster with Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar type and Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder. Id. at 3. This trial court also found Burmaster incompeten t to stand trial at that time and he was again hospitalized for treatment to determine if his competency could be restored

. Id. Bu rmaster then filed a petition for writ of mandamus

, in which he “complain[ed] of delay in a competency evalu ation, ” “challenge[d] the district court’s determination that he is not competent to stand trial and assert[ed] that his continued detention i s unlawful and exceeds the max imum sentence he faces.” Judgment, United States v. Burmaster , No. 2:13

- cr

- 00265 (E.D. La. Aug. 17, 2017), ECF No. 69 at 1

. The petition was denied

. Id. The Government filed, and the district court granted, a motion to dismiss without prejudice the indictment for good cause in view of Burmaster’s psychiatric evaluations

. Order, United State s v. Burmaster , No. 2:13

- cr

- 00265 (E.D. La. Aug. 17, 2017), ECF No. 68. Again, Burmaster was released from custody.
On December 5, 2017, Burmaster filed a complaint against the United States in the Claims Court , alleging unlawful imprisonment and a viol ation of his SixthBURMASTER v. UNITED STATES 4

Amendment right to a public trial by an impartial jury. Suppl. J.A. 2, 4. Burma ster sought monetary relief for the 1,241 total days he spent incarcerated, first, in Utah between 2008 and 2009, and second, in Louisiana between 2015 and 2017. He also sought “various forms of equit able relief [,] including declarations that ‘the United States of America is not a [r]ogue [n]ation,’ that ‘Americans honor both the word and letter of [their] international commitments,’ that the “‘Mental Health ’ statutes (18 [U.S.C. §] 4241 through 18 [U.S.C. §] 4246’ are unconst itutional, and that Mr. Burmaster is ‘competent to stand trial.’” Burmaster

, 2018 WL 1417683 , *1 (quoting Suppl. J.A. at 4 ). The Government moved to dismiss Burma ster’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Claims Court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Burmaster’s case. First, it found that it lack ed jurisdiction over Burmaster’s vari ous claims for declaratory relief because the Claims Court’s jurisdiction is restricted to claims for liquated or unliquidated dama ges in cases not sounding in tort under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) . Next, the Claims Court found it lacked jurisdiction over Burmaster’s claim of un just imprisonment because he was never convicted and he never provided, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2513(a)

– (b), a certificate proving his innocence of the crimes for which he was indicted . Finally, the Claims Court f ound that it lacked jurisdiction over Burmaster’s claim that the Go vernment violated his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury because the Claims Court’s jurisdiction over constit utional claims arises only when the provisions at issue are money mandating, and the Sixth Amendment is not such a provision. Thus, the Claims Court dismissed Burma ster’s complaint.
Burmaster appeals, arguing that the Claims Court has juri sdiction over his claims for unjust imprisonment, seeking equitable relief, and for violation of the SixthBURMASTER v. UNITED STATES 5

Amendment. We have jurisdiction over a final decision for the Claims Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

D ISCUSSION

W e review de novo whether the Claims Court po ssessed jurisdiction. Wheeler v. United States , 11 F.3d 156, 158 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Tucker Act defines the jurisdi ction of the Claims Court. Nat’l Air Traffic Controllers Assoc. v. United States , 160 F.3d 714, 716 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)).
First, Burmaster contends that the Claims Court has jurisdic tion over his claim of unjust imprisonment. The Tucker Act grants the Claims Court “jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim for damages by any person unjustly convicted of an offense against the United States and imprisoned.” Humphrey v. United St ates , 60 F. App’x 292, 294 (Fed. Cir. 2003). To satisfy the jurisdi ctional requirements for claims of unjust imprisonment, the person suing the United States must submit a certificate or pardon stating that “[h]is conviction has been reversed or set aside on the ground that he is not guilty of the offense of which he was convicted,” and that “[h]e did not commit any of the acts charged . . . .” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2513). Here, presumably because he was never convicted of any offense, Burmaster did n ot submit such a certificate or pardon

, nor did he otherwise assert that he did not commit the crimes charged in the indictment s

. For these reasons , the Claims Court correctly dismissed Burmaster’s claim for lack of jurisdiction. 1

1 Burmaster ’s complaint also sought treble damages under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). Suppl

. J.A. at 2. The Claims Court held that it “lacks jurisdiction over any claims that may be cognizable under the RICO Act b ecause jurisdiction over such claims ‘is conferred exclusiv e-BURMASTER v. UNITED STATES 6

To the extent Burmaster claims that his pretrial d etermination was in excess of that necessary to determine if he could be restored to competency, a ny remedy for that claim must be sought in the courts with jurisdiction over his custody. The Claims Court lacks authority to ente rtain any such action.
Next, Burmaster contends that the Claim s Court has jurisdiction over his claims seeking various forms of equitable relief, including “a judgment on the constit utionality of the ‘Mental Health’ statutes (18 U.S.C. [§] 4241 through 18 U.S.C. [§] 4246).” Suppl. J.A. at 4. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Tucker Act “to require that a plaintiff seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction must present a claim for ‘actual, presently due money damages from the United States.’” Nat’l Air

, 160 F.3d at 716 (quoting United States v. King , 395 U.S. 1, 3 (1969)). “ Although the Tucker Act has been amended to permit the [Claims Court] to grant equitable relief ancillary to claims for monetary relief over which it has jurisdiction, there is n o provision giving the [Claims Court] jurisdiction to grant equitable relief when it is unrelated to a claim for monetary relief pending before the court. ” Id. (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added) . Here, as noted above, the Claims Court lacks ju risdiction over Burmaster’s claim for monetary relief, i.e. his claim for unjust imprisonment. Even if it had jurisdiction, Burmaster’s claims for equitable relief are unrelated to his claims for monetary relief . I ndeed, a

ly on the United States District Courts.’” Burmaster

, 2018 WL 1417683 , *2

. Burmaster appears to challenge this on appeal. Reply Br. at 4

– 6. We agree with the Claims Court’s finding that it lacks jurisdiction over RICO claims. See § 1964(a) (“The district court s of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and

res train violations of section 1962 of this chapter . . . .”).BURMASTER v. UNITED STATES 7

judgment regarding Burmaster’s competency to stand trial or a judgment regarding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241

– 46 would not help Burmaster obtain monetary relief under hi s claim for unjust imprisonment

. Therefore, the Claims Court correctly found that it lacked jurisdictio n over Burmaster’s claims for equitable relief.
Finally, Burmaster contends tha t the Claims Court has jurisdiction over his Sixth Amendment claim. T he Claims Court has jurisdiction over claims against the United States that are founded upon a Constitutional provision , but o nly those provisions that mandate pa yment of money damages. Humphrey , 60 F. App’x at 295. The Sixth Amendment does not mandate money damages under the circumstances presented here

, Smith v. United States , 36 F. App’x 444, 446 (Fed. Cir. 2002) , therefore, the Claims Court correctly dismissed Burmaster’s c laim.

C ONCLUSION Because the Claims Court lacks subject matter juri sdiction over each of Burmaster’s claims, we affirm the Claims Court’s dismissal of Burmaster’s complaint

. AFFIRMED

C OSTS

No costs.