N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.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

______________________

L EWIS R. M ORGAN , La Pine, OR, pro se.

B ARBARA E. T HOMAS , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant -appellee. Also represen ted by B ENJAMIN C. M IZER , R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN , J R

. , M ARTIN F. H OCKE Y , J R

.

______________________

Before W ALLACH , T ARANTO , and S TOLL , Circuit Judges.MORGAN v. UNITED STATES 2

P ER C URIAM

. A ppellant Lewis R. Morgan appeals the final decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissing his co mplaint 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.

B ACKGROUND Mr. Morgan received loans from the Linn County Federal Credit Union (“the Credit Union”) for the pu rchase of a pickup truck and trailer

. Appellee’s App. 83

, 85

– 86, 93

. When he defaulted on the loans, the C redit U nion filed a complaint in Oregon state court to recoup the value of the outstanding loans. Id. at 82−9 2. 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 alleg ed breach of contract against the C redit U nion and Hartford Casualty Insu rance Group, the insurer of the truck and trailer, for failing to pay repair costs following an accident. Id. at 10−11. T he Court of Federal Claims treated the Motion as an initial complaint. Id. at 4. Mr. Morgan later amended the Initial C omplaint to i nclud e 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.

D ISCUSSION Whether the Court of Federal Claims possessed s u bject matter jurisdiction over a complaint raises “ a que stion 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 theMORGAN 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 juri sdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any reg ulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liqui dated 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 o mitted). A p laintiff must demo nstrate that a “source of substantive law” other than the Tucker Act provide s 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 plain tiff bears the burden of establishing subject [ ] matter jurisdi ction 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 dismiss ed 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 I nitial and A mended C omplaints, 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)

. Al though Mr. Morgan alleges that the S tate 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, 672MORGAN v. UNITED STATES 4

(Fed. Cir. 2015 ) ( citing United States v. Sherwood , 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941 ) ). In his N otice of A ppeal, Mr. Mo rgan 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. U

nited 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 pr ovide 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 co nvince 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 C omplaint in the Court of F ederal 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 (capital ization 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 th e case for lack of subject matter juri sdiction.

C ONCLUSION We have considered Mr. Morgan’s remaining arg uments 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