NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LEWIS R. MORGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-1206

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:16-cv-00937-EDK, Judge Elaine Kaplan.

______________________ 

Decided: April 5, 2017

______________________ 

LEWIS R. MORGAN, La Pine, OR, pro se.

BARBARA E. THOMAS, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., 

MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR. 

______________________ 

Before WALLACH, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
2 MORGAN v. UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM. 

Appellant Lewis R. Morgan appeals the final decision 

of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 

Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims

(“RCFC”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(3) (2012). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Morgan received loans from the Linn County 

Federal Credit Union (“the Credit Union”) for the purchase of a pickup truck and trailer. Appellee’s App. 83, 

85–86, 93. When he defaulted on the loans, the Credit 

Union filed a complaint in Oregon state court to recoup 

the value of the outstanding loans. Id. at 82−92. In 

response, Mr. Morgan filed a motion in the Court of 

Federal Claims seeking to transfer the Credit Union’s 

action to the Court of Federal Claims. Id. at 8–22. In 

that Motion, Mr. Morgan alleged breach of contract 

against the Credit Union and Hartford Casualty Insurance Group, the insurer of the truck and trailer, for 

failing to pay repair costs following an accident. Id. at 

10−11. The Court of Federal Claims treated the Motion 

as an initial complaint. Id. at 4. Mr. Morgan later 

amended the Initial Complaint to include copyright, 

trademark, and patent claims, id. at 149−52, along with a 

claim that “[t]he State of Oregon and [its] Employee’s [sic] 

did willfully assault Mr. Morgan . . . under surprise 

attack” and “h[e]ld[] hostage [Mr.] Morgan’s Son 

for . . . ransom,” id. at 147.

DISCUSSION

Whether the Court of Federal Claims possessed subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint raises “a question of law, which we review de novo.” Rick’s Mushroom 

Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 

2008) (citation omitted). “The jurisdictional reach of the 
MORGAN v. UNITED STATES 3

Court of Federal Claims is set forth in the Tucker Act.” 

Id. at 1343. The Tucker Act states in relevant part that

[t]he . . . Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim 

against the United States founded either upon the 

Constitution, or 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). Importantly, “[t]he Tucker Act is 

merely a jurisdictional statute and does not create a 

substantive cause of action.” Rick’s Mushroom Serv., 521 

F.3d at 1343 (citation omitted). A plaintiff must demonstrate that a “source of substantive law” other than the 

Tucker Act provides it with a claim for monetary damages 

against the United States. Fisher v. United States, 402 

F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “A plaintiff 

bears the burden of establishing subject[ ]matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” M. Maropakis 

Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323, 1327 

(Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). 

The Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed Mr. 

Morgan’s action because he has not alleged any claims 

against the United States and he has failed to identify a 

money-mandating source for his claims. In his Initial and 

Amended Complaints, he alleged claims against: “the 

Defendant’s State of Oregon (LINN CO F[ederal ]C[redit 

]U[nion)],” Appellee’s App. 144; see id. at 11 (similar), and 

“Financial Institutions (i.e. HARTFORD CASUALTY 

INSURANCE[)],” id. at 145; see id. at 11 (similar). Although Mr. Morgan alleges that the State of Oregon is “an 

entity of [the] UNITED STATES creating jurisdiction,” id.

at 10, we have held that “[t]he Court of Federal Claims 

lacks jurisdiction over states, state officials, and state 

agencies,” Lawton v. United States, 621 F. App’x 671, 672 
4 MORGAN v. UNITED STATES

(Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sherwood, 312 

U.S. 584, 588 (1941)). In his Notice of Appeal, Mr. Morgan also asserts that “the United States is the party 

responsible for the ‘CONTRACTS’ before the [c]ourt,” but 

offers no evidence to support this assertion. Morgan v. 

United States, No. 2017-1206, Docket No. 1-2 at 4 (Fed. 

Cir. Nov. 14, 2016). Furthermore, Mr. Morgan has not 

identified any source of substantive law that would provide for monetary damages had he asserted a claim

against the United States. See generally Appellant’s Br.; 

Appellee’s App. 8−160 (Appellant’s Initial and Amended 

Complaints). 

Mr. Morgan’s arguments to the contrary do not convince us otherwise. First, he argues that “[t]he [Court of 

Federal Claims] failed to transfer claims as requested 

which allows subject matter jurisdiction for the court.” 

Appellant’s Br. 1 (capitalization omitted). The case was 

never considered for transfer; Mr. Morgan’s Motion to 

Transfer was treated as his Initial Complaint in the Court 

of Federal Claims. Appellee’s App. 5. Moreover, the 

Court of Federal Claims’s ability to properly consider a 

transferred case depends on “the existence of subject 

matter jurisdiction.” Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. 

Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

Second, Mr. Morgan states that “the defendant[]s have 

failed to controvert allegations . . . as deemed by the Law 

Rules 26 [and] 27.” Appellant’s Br. 1 (capitalization 

omitted). It is unclear to which allegations and rules Mr. 

Morgan is referring. To the extent that this argument 

requires the court to consider arguments related to the 

merits of the case, we are precluded from doing so because 

we must dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Morgan’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For these reasons, 
MORGAN v. UNITED STATES 5

the final decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims is 

AFFIRMED