NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DANIEL HARVEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-1394

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:16-cv-01477-JFM, Senior Judge James F. 

Merow. 

______________________ 

Decided: April 6, 2017

______________________ 

DANIEL HARVEY, Las Vegas, NV, pro se. 

KELLY A. KRYSTYNIAK, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented 

by JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., PATRICIA 

M. MCCARTHY. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
2 HARVEY v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Mr. Harvey appeals a final decision of the trial court 

dismissing his complaint on the grounds that he failed to

demonstrate that the Court of Federal Claims has subject 

matter jurisdiction over his claims. Viewing the complaint under the generous pleading standards this court 

affords to pro se litigants, we conclude that the trial court 

has no jurisdiction over Mr. Harvey’s claims. We therefore affirm. 

BACKGROUND 

Mr. Harvey, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint at the 

Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) consisting of more than 

600 pages of materials. He seems to allege that various 

events throughout his life, including service in the military, constitute violations of his constitutional rights and 

the prohibition against slavery. The COFC issued an 

order, sua sponte dismissing the complaint for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Harvey appeals. We 

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

Subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue that 

courts must address before they consider the merits of a 

claim. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 

89 (1998); Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1173 

(Fed. Cir. 2005). We review de novo a COFC decision to 

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Banks v. United States, 

741 F.3d 1268, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As the COFC 

acknowledged, pro se filings are to be liberally construed, 

but that does not alleviate a plaintiff’s burden to establish 

jurisdiction. Colbert v. United States, 617 F. App’x 981, 

983 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. 

Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 

Pursuant to the Tucker Act, the COFC has limited jurisdiction to resolve certain claims against the United 

States that are “founded either upon the Constitution, or 
HARVEY v. US 3

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 in tort.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1491(a)(1). But the Tucker Act does not create any 

substantive right of action against the United States. 

United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). Plaintiffs must identify and plead an independent contractual 

relationship, constitutional provision, federal statute, or 

executive agency regulation that provides a substantive 

right to money damages. See Todd v. United States, 386 

F.3d 1091, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The source of substantive law must mandate compensation by the federal 

government; it must be “money-mandating.” Testan, 424 

U.S. at 400. 

It seems Mr. Harvey alleges that, at the hands of the 

United States government, he has suffered injuries in 

contravention of his rights provided by the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States 

Constitution. The COFC’s limited jurisdiction does not 

extend to claims brought under the Thirteenth Amendment, or the Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, because they do not contain moneymandating provisions. See Smith v. United States, 709 

F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Smith v. United States, 

36 F. App’x 444, 445 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 

While the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause can serve 

as a substantive cause of action against the government, 

the COFC correctly dismissed in this case because the 

complaint fails to allege any “injury in fact,” which is a 

prerequisite to establishing standing to bring a takings 

claim. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. 

(TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180−81 (2000). 

We therefore affirm. 

AFFIRMED