NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JAMES LA VELL HARRIS, AKA SMILEY JAMES 

HARRIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2024-1007

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:23-cv-00510-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.

______________________ 

Decided: March 12, 2024

______________________ 

JAMES LA VELL HARRIS, Clearlake, CA, pro se.

 BORISLAV KUSHNIR, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 24-1007 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 03/12/2024
2 HARRIS v. US

PER CURIAM. 

James La Vell Harris, a.k.a. Smiley James Harris, appeals from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of 

his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We 

affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Harris filed a complaint in the Court of Federal 

Claims asserting subject-matter jurisdiction under the 

Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The complaint alleged 

that, as a result of various cases in Lake County, California, Mr. Harris was unjustly convicted and imprisoned for 

violating California law regarding driving without a license

(or driving under a suspended one). It further alleged, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1481, that these unjust convictions and imprisonments resulted from a failure to train officers on how 

to protect the rights of expatriated persons, and it sought

damages for these convictions and imprisonments under 

28 U.S.C. § 1495. The complaint also referenced Mr. Harris’s “claims of ‘copyright infringement’” under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1498(b) and sought related damages under 17 U.S.C. 

§ 504(c). SApp’x 6.1 And it referenced the alleged seizure 

of certain of his property by the police department of Clearlake, California. SApp’x 13–15.

The government moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it stated no claim within the Court of Federal 

Claims’ limited subject-matter jurisdiction. Before evaluating the complaint, the Court of Federal Claims recognized that, as a pro se plaintiff, Mr. Harris’s filings should 

be construed liberally and held to less stringent standards 

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Harris v. United 

States, No. 23-510, 2023 WL 4842350, at *2 (Fed. Cl. 

1 “SApp’x” refers to the supplemental appendix included with the government’s informal brief.

Case: 24-1007 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 03/12/2024
HARRIS v. US 3

July 28, 2023). But it also noted that this leniency does not 

relieve such plaintiffs of jurisdictional requirements. Id.

After examining the complaint’s claims, the Court of 

Federal Claims concluded that none fell within its subjectmatter jurisdiction. As to any claim for damages under 

28 U.S.C. § 1495, the court noted that this statute provides 

it jurisdiction to “render judgment upon any claim for damages by any person unjustly convicted of an offense against 

the United States and imprisoned.” Id. (emphasis added) 

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1495). It reasoned, however, that 

“[b]ecause Mr. Harris’s complaint challenge[d] only state

convictions,” this statute did not provide it jurisdiction. Id.

(emphasis added). The court also examined whether other 

possible claims might have fallen within its jurisdiction, 

but it found none. For example, although the complaint 

cited 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) and 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)—concerning copyright-infringement claims against the United 

States and related damages—and also attached what was 

described as a “Common Law Copyright notice,” the court 

concluded that the complaint “fail[ed] to state an infringement claim against the United States.” Id. at *3 n.4. And, 

although the complaint had cited 8 U.S.C. § 1481—“a statute that identifies various acts a [U.S.] national can take 

to relinquish his or her nationality”—the court concluded 

that, because this statute does not mandate compensation 

by the United States, it does not supply Tucker Act jurisdiction. See id. at *3. Finally, although the complaint appeared to assert claims against private or state entities—

possibly in relation to, among other things, the propertyseizure allegations—the Court of Federal Claims concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over these claims against 

such nonfederal entities. See id. at *2. The court therefore

granted the government’s motion and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at *3.

Mr. Harris timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

Case: 24-1007 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 03/12/2024
4 HARRIS v. US

DISCUSSION

We review de novo the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Waltner v. 

United States, 679 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction. The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), gives it jurisdiction over nontort “claims for money damages against 

the United States” founded upon “any Act of Congress.” 

See Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 

2005) (en banc in relevant part) (cleaned up). To come 

within the court’s Tucker Act jurisdiction, however, “a 

plaintiff must identify a separate source of substantive law 

that creates the right to money damages”—in other words, 

a source that is “money-mandating.” Id. 

We see no error in the Court of Federal Claims’ conclusion that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over any 

claim in Mr. Harris’s complaint. For example, although the 

complaint sought damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1495 for allegedly unjust convictions and imprisonments, that statute 

applies to convictions of federal crimes, not state crimes. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1495 (“The [U.S.] Court of Federal Claims 

shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim 

for damages by any person unjustly convicted of an offense

against the United States and imprisoned.” (emphasis 

added)); see also Machulas v. United States, 621 F. App’x 

629, 632 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (nonprecedential) (concluding 

that the Court of Federal Claims lacked 28 U.S.C. § 1495 

jurisdiction because the plaintiff “was convicted of a state 

crime, not a federal crime”). As the Court of Federal 

Claims noted here, the complaint “challenge[d] only state

convictions,” Harris, 2023 WL 4842350, at *2 (emphasis 

added), and Mr. Harris does not dispute that any conviction or imprisonment identified in the complaint resulted 

from violations of state, as opposed to federal, law. We 

therefore affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of 

any claim that was based on 28 U.S.C. § 1495.

Case: 24-1007 Document: 13 Page: 4 Filed: 03/12/2024
HARRIS v. US 5

We also see no error in the Court of Federal Claims’ 

dismissal of any claim that was based on 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1498(b) or 8 U.S.C. § 1481. As to the former, the court 

correctly noted that, although the complaint mentioned 

this statutory provision (and another regarding related 

damages), it never alleged that the government infringed a 

copyright. And, as to the latter, Mr. Harris has not shown 

how this statute is money-mandating, and we see nothing 

suggesting that it is. We therefore affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of any claims that were based on 

these statutory provisions.

Finally, to the extent the complaint included a claim 

against private or state entities (for example, regarding the 

alleged seizure of Mr. Harris’s property), the Court of Federal Claims correctly dismissed any such claim under these 

circumstances. See Langan v. United States, 812 F. App’x 

982, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (nonprecedential) (affirming 

Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of any claims against 

private or state entities).

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Harris’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we 

affirm.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 24-1007 Document: 13 Page: 5 Filed: 03/12/2024