NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

NATHANIEL ERSKINE ROLLE,

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

______________________ 

NATHANIEL ERSKINE ROLLE, Folkston, GA, pro se. 

 GEOFFREY MARTIN LONG, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by TARA K. HOGAN, ROBERT EDWARD 

KIRSCHMAN, JR., JOSEPH H. HUNT. 

 ______________________ 
2 ROLLE v. UNITED STATES

Before PROST, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and MOORE,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

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 conviction in the Southern District of Florida and seeking his 

immediate release. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of 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 authority to hear cases arising under the habeas statute. Ledford 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. Title 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 cited 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 offense against the United States and imprisoned.” (em-
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 compensation for loss or injury.” DAMAGES, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). Mr. Rolle’s petition does not 

make a claim for damages. Instead, it seeks his release 

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 the Commonwealth 

of the Bahamas concerning cooperation in maritime law 

enforcement. The 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). Breach 

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 

semantically 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 immunity 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 States 

Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction of any 

claim against the United States growing out of or dependent upon any treaty entered into with foreign nations.”). 

Moreover, Mr. Rolle’s petition does not seek monetary 
4 ROLLE v. UNITED STATES

relief, and thus the Tucker 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. The Court of Federal 

Claims properly found that it does not have jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of 

Federal Claims is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.