N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.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

______________________

D ANIEL H ARVEY , Las Vegas, NV , pro se.

K ELLY A. K RYSTYNIAK , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by J OYCE R. B RANDA , R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN , J R

. , P ATRICI A M. M C C ARTHY

.

______________________

Before N EWMAN , O’M ALLEY , and R EYNA , Circuit Judges.HARVEY v. US 2

P ER C URIAM

. 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 co mplaint 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 ther efore affirm

. B ACKGROUND

Mr

. H arvey , 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 mil itary, const itute 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).

D ISCUSSION 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 j urisdiction to resolve certain claims against the United States that are “founded either upon the Constitution, orHARVEY 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 da mages 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). Plai ntiffs 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 substa ntive law must mandate compensation by the federa l 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
contr avention of his rights provided by the Fifth, Thi rteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The COFC’s limited jurisdiction does not extend to claims brought under the Thirteenth Amen dment, or the Due Process clauses of the Fift h and Fou rteenth Amendments, because they do not contain money

mandating 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 Clau se 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