NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IAN OWEN SHARPE, GREGORY 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 MOORE, LINN and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Ian Owen Sharpe, Gregory R. Young, and Michael 

Troy Olson appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims decision to dismiss their complaint for lack of 

Case: 13-5148 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 12/20/2013
2 SHARPE v. US

jurisdiction. This court grants the government’s motion to 

summarily affirm. 

The appellants in this case are all federal prisoners. 

On May 6, 2013, they filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and other prisoners asking the Court of Federal 

Claims for, among other things, their immediate release

from incarceration. They asserted that the federal district 

courts that had imprisoned them lacked authority to do 

so.

Specifically, appellants alleged that 18 U.S.C. § 3231,

the law which gives federal district courts jurisdiction 

over criminal cases, was never passed or signed in the 

presence of a quorum or majority of both Houses of Congress as required by the United States Constitution.1 The

appellants also requested compensatory damages for 

unlawful incarceration and imprisonment and “for willful, 

arbitrary, and vindictive prosecutions of each of the 

Plaintiffs.” On May 21, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims 

dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. 

On June 27, 2013, appellants moved for reconsideration of that decision. On September 4, 2013, the Court of 

Federal Claims affirmed its original holding. In addition, 

the court 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 rejected 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); United 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: 12/20/2013
 SHARPE v. US 3

The 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, or any Act of Congress.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1491(a)(1). The Tucker Act does not itself provide the 

substantive 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 

against the United States. See United States v. Testan, 

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

In a thorough discussion of the appellants’ submissions, the Court of Federal Claims went through the 

various constitutional and statutory sources of law cited 

by the appellants but found that none conferred 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 cogent

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 to transfer a case pursuant 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: 12/20/2013
4 SHARPE v. US

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 criminal convictions. Based on that prior 

history and the frivolous nature of the current complaint, 

it was reasonable for the Court of Federal Claims to 

conclude that transfer of this case to a federal district 

court would merely result in a further waste of judicial 

resources. See generally Galloway Farms, Inc. v. United 

States, 834 F.2d 998, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also Phillips v. Seiter, 173 F.3d 609, 610-11 (7th Cir. 1999) (transfer of a frivolous case is a waste of judicial resources). 

Finally, in their numerous submissions to this court

appellants request various forms of relief, including

appointment of counsel, release from incarceration on 

bond, and certification of a question for review by the 

Supreme Court of the United States pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1254(2). While this court has considered these 

submissions, this court is not convinced that such relief is 

appropriate or available. 

Because it is clear that the Court of Federal Claims’ 

decision was clearly correct, summary affirmance is 

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,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The United States’ motion is granted. The judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed. 

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

 FOR THE COURT

 /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