N OTE : This o rder is nonprecedential.


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

______________________
IAN OWEN SHARPE, GRE GORY R. YOUNG, AND MICHAEL TROY OLSON, Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________

2013

- 5148

______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:13

- cv

- 00319

- ECH, Chief Judge Emily C. Hewitt.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before M OORE
, L INN and O’M ALLEY
, Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

Ian Owen Sharpe, Gregory R. Young, and Michael Troy Olson appeal from the United States Court of Fede ral Claims decision to dismiss their complaint for lack of Case: 13-5148 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 12/20/2013SHARPE v. US 2

jurisdiction. This court grants the government’s motion to summarily affirm.

The appellants in this case are all federal prisoners. O n May 6, 2013, they filed a complaint on behalf of the mselves and other prisoners asking the Court of Feder al Claims for , among other things, their immediate release from incarceration . They as serted that the federal district courts that had imprisoned them lacked authority to do

so

. Specifica lly, appellant s alleged that 18 U.S.C. § 3231, the law which gives federal district courts jurisdiction
over crimi nal cases

, was never passed or signed in the presence of a quorum or majority of both Houses of Co ngress as required by the United States Constitution. 1 The appellant s a lso requested compensatory damages for unlawful incarceration and imprisonment and “for willful, arbitrary, and vindictive prosecutions of each of the Plaintiffs.” On May 21, 2013, t he Court of Federal Claims
dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdicti on.
On June 27, 2013, appellant s moved for r econsider ation of that decision

. On September 4, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims affirmed its original holding. In addition,
the cour t denied appellants ’ motion to transfer this case to another court, and sanctioned appellants for abusing the judicial process

. This appeal followed

.

1 This same argument has been addressed and rejec ted by a number of courts. See, e.g., Wolford v. United States , 362 Fed. App ’ x 231, 232 (3d Cir. 2010); United States v. Carey , 2012 WL 928700, *1

- 2 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2012); U nited States v. Risquet , 426 F. Supp. 2d 310, 311

- 12 (E.D. Pa. 2006); Salem v. United States , 2011 WL 2118610 (S.D. Miss. May 26, 2011); United States v. Siegelman , 2007 WL 1284276 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 30, 2007). Case: 13-5148 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 12/20/2013SHARPE v. US 3

T he Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction is defined by the Tucker Act, which gives it the power to hear “any claim against the United States founded . . . upon the Constitution, o r any Act of Congress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The Tucker Act does not itself provide the sub stantive right of enforcement for money damages ; instead, a plaintiff must look elsewhere for the source of
substantive law on which to base a Tucker Act suit

a gainst the United States. See United States v. Testan

, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976).

In a thorough discussion of the appellants’ submi ssions

, the Court of Federal Cl aims went through the various constitutional and statutory source s of law cited by the appellants but found that none conf er red upon them a right to money damages based on their alleged wrongful imprisonment or otherwise granted the Court of Federal Claims authority to act on their complaint

. Appellants ’ informal brief does not raise any co gent argument as to why that determination was in error. 2

In their brief, appellants again request that their case be transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to a federal
district court. This court reviews a decision by the Court of Federal Claims t o transfer a case pursu ant to § 1631 for an abuse of discretion. See Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States , 521 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008). While the Court of Federal Claims acknowledged
that it perhaps had the authority to transfer the case , it

2 To the extent that appellants were attempting to seek review of the federal district court’s decisions to incarcerate them, such matters are clearly outside of the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. See Boise Cascade Corp. v. United States , 296 F.3d 1339,
1343

- 44 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ( “It is true that Article III forbids the Court of Federal Claims, an Article I tribunal, from reviewing the actions of an Article III court . . . .”). Case: 13-5148 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 12/20/2013SHARPE v. US 4

found that it would not be in the interest of justice to do

so

. That was not an abuse of discretion. The Court of Federal Claims cited, with ample support, the appellants ’ long history of filing frivolous lawsuits attempting to challenge their crim inal convic tions

. Based on that prior history and the friv olous nature of the current complaint

, it was rea sonable for the Court of Federal Claims to conclude that transfer of this case to a federal district court would merely result in a further wa ste of judicial

re sources. See generally Galloway Farms, Inc. v. United States , 834 F.2d 998, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also Phi llips v. Seiter , 173 F.3d 609, 610

- 11 (7th Cir. 1999) (tran sfer of a frivolous case is a waste of judicial resources).

Finally, in their numerous submissions to this court appellants re quest various forms of relief , including

ap point ment of counsel , release from incarceration on bond , and certification of a ques tion for review by the Supreme Court of the United States pursu ant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2). While this court has considered these submissions

, this court is not convinced that such rel ief is appropriate or available.

Bec ause it is clear that the Co urt of Federal Claims’ decision was clearly correct , s ummary affirmance i s appropriate. See Joshua v. United States , 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Summary affirmance of a case “is appropriate, inter alia , when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.”).

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The United States’ motion is granted. The jud gment of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed

. Case: 13-5148 Document: 24 Page: 4 Filed: 12/20/2013SHARPE v. US 5

(2) Appellants’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is moot.

(3 ) All other motions are denied

. (4 ) Each side shall bear its own costs.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

s26

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: December 20, 2013 Case: 13-5148 Document: 24 Page: 5 Filed: 12/20/2013