N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

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

______________________ ALBERT W. UPSHUR, YO LANDA D. THOMPSON, BENNIE SHEPPARD,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2017

- 2274

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:16

- cv

- 01451

- MCW, Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams.

______________________
Decided: November 13, 2017

______________________
A LBERT W. U PSHUR , Y OLANDA D. T HOMPSON , B ENNIE S HEPPARD , Philadelphia, PA, pro se.

E RIN M URDOCK -P ARK , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant

- appellee. Also represen ted by C HAD A. R EADLER , R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN , J R ., B RIAN A. M IZOGUCHI

.

______________________UPSHUR v. UNITED STATES 2

Before T ARANTO , C LEVENGER , and S TOLL , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM

. Appellants Albert Upshur, Yolanda Thompson, and Bennie Sheppard brought this action in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The court dismissed the action. We affirm.

I
In November 2016, ap pellants filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims challenging the authority of the United States, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and various third parties to “make legal decisions and jud gments” and to “interpret and apply the law.” J.A. 5

– 8. They claimed violations of their “Constitutional ri ghts, Federal law, and a treaty, ” J.A. 8 ; and the Court of Fede ral Claims eventually treated the complaint as involving, in particular, certain claims under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, Ups hur v. United States , No. 16

- 1451C, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cl. June 21, 2017) ( Decision ). As bases for the court’s jurisdiction , appellants invoked 28 U.S.C. §§ 1333, 1337, 2461, and 2463. They sought da mages totaling nearly $4.6 trillion.

The United States moved to dismiss the complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims

. On June 21, 2017
, the court granted the motion, dismissing the co mplaint after determining that a ppellants had not esta blish ed subject

- matter jurisdiction

. Decision at 2 –3

. The
court explained that, for it to have jurisdiction here, the complaint would have to come within the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 , not 28 U.S.C. §§ 1333 & 1337 , which are conferrals of jurisdiction only o n district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims

. As to the Tucker Act, one pro blem with the complaint, the court ruled, is that the United States was the only “proper defendant

, ” and the courtUPSHUR v. UNITED STATES 3

therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear claims against any of the other named defendants. Id . at 2. And even as to the United States, the court further determined, appellants have simply not stated a claim that comes within the Tucker Act’s reach, which requires a source of law outside the Act that mandates moneta ry relief against the United States for identified wrongs. Id. Neither 28 U.S.C. §§ 2461 and 2463 nor any discernible claim under the First, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendments in this case is such a money

- mandating source of law

. Id. Appellants timely appealed from the dismissal

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) to review the dismissal of the complaint

. We review dismissals by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction de novo

. Frazer v. United States , 288 F. 3d 1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

II
Under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims has “j urisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Const itution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executiv e 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). The Tucker Act is “only a jurisdi ctional statute; it does not create any subst antive right enforceable against the United States for money dama ges.” United States v. Testan , 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). In order for the Court of Federal Claims to have subject

matter jurisdiction over a ppellants’ claims, the claims must be for money d amages against the United States, and a ppellants “ must demonstrate that the source of substantive law [ they ] rel [y] upon ‘can fairly be interpre ted as mandating compensation by the Federal Gover nment for the damages sustained .’” United States v.UPSHUR v. UNITED STATES 4

Mitchell

, 463 U.S. 206, 216

– 17 (1983) ( quoting Testan

, 424 U.S. at 400)

. The Court of Federal Claims followed that well

established framework. A ppellants nevertheless seek reversal , asserting that the court did not adequately consider (a) certain Title Deeds and (b) certain alleged sources of money

- mandating law, namely, the “ Laws of Universal Life ” or “Heavenly Laws

, ” and the Ninth Amendment. Appellants have not shown error. Although a ppellants point to various Title Deeds , t hey have not taken the next cruc ial step for stating a claim within the Tucker Act. They have presented no compr ehensible argument about the identified Title Deeds that would even plausibly state a claim under a source of law that is money

- mandating for Tucker Act purposes. Appe llants have not identified any relevant source of law that is
money- mandating against the United States . We note that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is mo ney- mandating

. S ee Schooner Harbor Ventures, Inc. v. United States , 569 F.3d 1359, 1361

– 62 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ; Hernandez v. United States , 93 Fed. Cl. 193, 197 (2010)

. B ut appellants have neither invoked that clause nor provided any understandable basis for making a takings claim in this case , as to the Title Deeds or otherwise

. A ppellants suggest that the Court of Federal Claims overlooked two sources of law relevant to the Tucker Act. One they characterize as the “ Laws of Universal Life” or “Heavenly Laws” (or “the Biblical Scriptures ” ). Appe llants failed to make this contention in the C ourt of Fede ral Claims, thus waiving the contention, but in any event we see no basis for finding a waiver of sovereign immun ity by the United States under the Tucker Act for such claims. Appellants likewise failed to invoke the Ninth Amendment in the Cou rt of Federal Claims, but in any event we see no basis for newly deeming the Ninth Amendment to be money- mandating, a n innovation weUPSHUR v. UNITED STATES 5

have rejected before. See

, e.g. , Conner v. United States

, 641 F. App’ x 972, 975 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ; Barksdale v. United States , 582 F. App’x 890, 891

– 92 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

III For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed

. AFFIRMED

No costs.