N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

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

______________________

NATHANIEL ERSKINE RO LLE, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2018

- 1592

______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:17

- cv

- 01163

- SGB, Senior Judge Susan G. Braden.

______________________

Decided: November 13, 2018

______________________

N ATHANIEL E RSKINE R OLLE , Folkston, GA, pro se.

G EOFFREY M ARTIN L ONG , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by T ARA K. H OGAN
, R OBERT E DWARD K IRSCHMAN
, J R ., J OSEPH H. H UNT

.

______________________ROLLE v. UNITED STATES 2

Before P ROST
, Chief Judge, C LEVENGER and M OORE
, Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM

. Nathaniel Rolle filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 with the United States Court of Federal Claims, challenging his criminal convi ction in the Southern District of Florida and seeking his immediate release . The Court of Federal Claims di smissed for lack o f subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that it does not have the authority to hear the case . We affirm.

The Court of Federal Claims can only decide cases it has been given statutory authority to hear. See Terran ex rel. Terran v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 195 F.3d 1302, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1999). It has not been given autho rity to hear cases arising under the habeas statute. Le dford v. United States , 297 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Section 2241(a) states that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. While Mr. Rolle argues that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction because it falls under the scope of a “district court,” that is inconsistent with our decision in Ledford and with the language of the statute. See 297 F.3d at
1381. T itle 28 defines the term “district court” as the courts constituted by chapter 5 of title 28 . 28 U.S.C. § 451. The Court of Federal Claims is constituted by chapter 7 of title 28, not chapter 5. See 28 U.S.C. § 171. It is, therefore, not a “district court” and may not grant writs of habeas corpus.

Before the Court of Federal Claims, Mr. Rolle also ci ted 28 U.S.C. § 1495, which gives the Court of Federal Claims “jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim for damages by any person unjustly convicted of an o ffense against the United States and imprisoned.” (e m-ROLLE v. UNITED STATES 3

phasis added). The term “damages” refers to “[m] oney claimed by, or ordered to be paid to, a person as compe nsation for loss or injury.” DAMAGES, Black ’ s Law Di ctionary (10th ed. 2014) . Mr. Rolle ’s petition does not mak e a claim for damages. Instead, it seeks his re lease from confinement. Section 1495, therefore, does not give the Court of Federal Claims authority to hear Mr. Rolle’s

case. Mr. Rolle also argues the United States has breached a contractual agreement it made with th e Commonwealth of the Bahamas concer n ing cooperation in maritime law enforcement. T he Court of Federal Claims has “jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States .

. . upon any express or implied contract with the United States .” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). B reach of the maritime agreement does not give the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction in this case. See Roberts v. United States , No. 2018

- 1621, 2018 WL 4178223, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2018) (affirming dismissal for lack of jurisdiction where a breach of the maritime agreement was alleged) ; Kania v. United States , 650 F.2d 264, 268 (Ct. Cl. 1981) (“The contract liability which is enforceable under the Tucker Act consent to suit does not extend to every agreement, understanding, or compact which can

sem antically be stated in terms of offer and acceptance or meeting of minds.”); cf. De Archibold v. United States , 499 F.3d 1310, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[I]n the absence of clear and unequivocal language to the contrary, treaties and international executive agreements between sovereign nations .

. . are not within the waiver of sovereign immu nity for claims of breach of an ‘express contract’ contained in the Little Tucker Act.”) ; 28 U.S.C. § 1502 ( “Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the United S tates Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction of any claim against the United States growing out of or depen dent upon any treaty entered into with foreign nations.”). Moreover, Mr. Rolle’s petition does not seek monetaryROLLE v. UNITED STATES 4

relief, and thus the T ucker Act does not provide the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction

. Gonzales & Gonzales Bonds & Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 490 F.3d 940, 943 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

. We have considered Mr. Rolle’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. T he Court of Federal Claims properly found that it does not have jurisdiction.

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

. AF FIRMED

C OSTS

No costs.