NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LEONARD P. MACHULAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5042

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 14-cv-00913, Judge Susan G. Braden.

______________________ 

Decided: July 13, 2015

______________________ 

LEONARD P. MACHULAS, Bloomingdale, GA, pro se.

RETA EMMA BEZAK, Commercial Litigation Branch,

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

STEVEN J. GILLINGHAM. 

______________________ 

Before WALLACH, BRYSON, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges.
2 MACHULAS V. UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Leonard Machulas appeals the final order 

of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Court of 

Federal Claims”) dismissing his suit for lack of jurisdiction. See Machulas v. United States, No. 14-913 C, 2014 

WL 7012102 (Cl. Ct. Dec. 11, 2014) (Appellee’s App. 1–6) 

(“Final Order”). For the reasons set forth below, this 

court affirms. 

BACKGROUND

I. Facts and Proceedings

Mr. Machulas’s lawsuit stems from divorce proceedings, with a final judgment entered on November 7, 2008. 

Order on Pl.[’s] Mot. for Contempt, Machulas v. Machulas, No. DR08-D448-BR (Ga. Super. Ct. Chatham 

Cnty. Feb. 23, 2010) (“Contempt Order”).1 The divorce 

decree required Mr. Machulas to provide three years of 

health insurance for Mrs. Machulas. Id. at 1. Mr. Machulas was held in “willful contempt of the final judgment” for failure to provide healthcare coverage. Id. As a 

result, he was confined to jail in Chatham County, Georgia for three days. Id. After such time, Mr. Machulas 

was required to pay attorney fees, pay Mrs. Machulas’s 

medical expenses since the divorce, and procure and 

maintain medical and hospital insurance for Mrs. Machulas for three years from the divorce date. Id. at 2. Mr.

Machulas filed a motion for reconsideration, new trial, 

and motion to set aside the earlier contempt order, but 

1 “On February 20, 2015, the Government received 

a document from Mr. Machulas entitled ‘My Brief,’ attached at A21–55.” Appellee’s Br. 2 n.2. Appellee noted 

the “facts alleged in this document were not presented to 

the trial court and therefore should not be considered in 

this appeal.” Id. However, consideration of these facts 

does not change this court’s decision. 

 
MACHULAS v. UNITED STATES 3

the motion was denied on August 22, 2013. On January 

28, 2014, Mr. Machulas filed an application for discretionary appeal with the Supreme Court of Georgia seeking review of the trial court’s denial of his motion for 

reconsideration, new trial, and motion to set aside previous contempt order. Appellant’s Supp. Br. Ex. 24. However, the application for discretionary appeal was 

dismissed for failure to file within thirty days of entry of 

the contempt order. Id. at Ex. 26. 

On September 29, 2014, Mr. Machulas, proceeding pro 

se, filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims 

against “the United States and Michael Horowitz, the 

Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Civil 

Rights Division[;] . . . the [s]tate of Georgia; the Superior 

Court of Chatham County, [Georgia]; the Supreme Court 

of Georgia; and a number of private individuals and 

members of the Judiciary.” Final Order at 2. Mr. Machulas alleged “unjust conviction, and imprisonment, in 

the state of Georgia Superior Court[,] Chatham Count[]y, 

in Savannah, GA[]. And the cover up, and the protection 

by the Supreme Court of GA, knowing the judges made a 

wrong decision, and will not talk or correct this.” App. 8. 

Mr. Machulas’s Court of Federal Claims complaint indicated he filed, in November 2011, the first of numerous 

complaints with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Civil 

Rights Division (“CRD”), regarding violations of his civil 

rights by the Chatham County Superior Court and the 

Supreme Court of Georgia. Id. Mr. Machulas also stated 

in the complaint he filed two complaints with the DOJ 

Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”). Id. Mr. Machulas 

attached the DOJ OIG’s response, which stated “matters . . . raised [by Mr. Machulas] are outside of our investigative jurisdiction, therefore no action will be taken by 

this office.” Appellant’s Supp. Br. Ex. 16. 

The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Machulas’s complaint under the Rules of the United States 

Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) for lack of jurisdiction, 
4 MACHULAS V. UNITED STATES

RCFC 12(b)(1), and failure to state a claim upon which 

relief could be granted, RCFC 12(b)(6). Final Order at 6. 

The Court of Federal Claims explained 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1491(a)(1) (2012) (“Tucker Act”) does not provide the

court with subject matter jurisdiction over claims against 

parties other than the United States. Id. at 3. The court

also explained that 28 U.S.C. §§ 1495 and 2513 do not 

provide the court with subject matter jurisdiction over 

claims of unjust conviction and imprisonment by the state 

of Georgia. Id. at 5. Finally, the Court of Federal Claims 

found even if the court had subject matter jurisdiction, 

Mr. Machulas’s complaint did not allege facts sufficient to 

satisfy pleading standards. Id. 

Mr. Machulas timely appealed. This court possesses

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) (2012). 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

“This court reviews de novo the Court of Federal 

Claims decision to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.” 

Waltner v. United States, 679 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 

2012). 

II. Legal Framework

“The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction.” Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 

(Fed. Cir. 1997). The Tucker Act confers jurisdiction upon

the Court of Federal Claims to “render judgment upon 

any claim against the United States founded either upon 

the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation 

of an executive 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). However, the Tucker Act is “only a 

jurisdictional statute; it does not create any substantive 

right enforceable against the United States for money 

damages.” United States. v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 
MACHULAS v. UNITED STATES 5

(1976). The Tucker Act merely confers jurisdiction on the 

Court of Federal Claims whenever the substantive right 

exists. Id. “[I]n order to come within the jurisdictional 

reach and the waiver of the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must 

identify a separate source of substantive law that creates 

the right to money damages.” Fisher v. United States, 402 

F.3d 1167, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

The Court of Federal Claims also possesses “jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim for damages by 

any person unjustly convicted of an offense against the 

United States and imprisoned.” 28 U.S.C. § 1495. 

II. Mr. Machulas Has Not Demonstrated the Court of 

Federal Claims Possessed Jurisdiction

On appeal, Mr. Machulas asserts under the Tucker 

Act and Testan he “was done in[] by 3 courts and judges 

wrongly.” Appellant’s Supp. Br. 6. Mr. Machulas’s argument, to the extent that he argues, the Court of Federal 

Claims possessed jurisdiction to hear his case under the 

Tucker Act and Testan is not supported. Id. Mr. Machulas contends to 

have me[]t the burden of jurisdiction, when I first 

went to the DOJ [CRD], I have made many complaints to the[m], and the I.G. [DOJ OIG]. I was 

unlawfully harmed physical[ly], and mental[ly], 

when I was put in jail . . . for civil contempt. . . . I 

went to the DOJ CR[D], they took my civil rights 

away, and my due process was violated. 

Id. at 5. 

Mr. Machulas’s Court of Federal Claims complaint 

was filed, in part, against private individuals and members of the Judiciary. Final Order at 2. As such, these 

individuals fail to meet the Tucker Act’s requirement that 

a complaint be alleged against the “United States founded 

either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or 

any regulation of an executive department.” 28 U.S.C.
6 MACHULAS V. UNITED STATES

§ 1491(a)(1); see also United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 

584, 588 (1941) (stating the Court of Federal Claims is 

without jurisdiction for suits brought against private 

parties.). 

Mr. Machulas’s complaint was also filed, in part,

against the DOJ CRD and OIG; the state of Georgia; the 

Superior Court of Chatham County, Georgia; and the 

Supreme Court of Georgia for unjust conviction and 

imprisonment. Final Order at 2. Mr. Machulas failed to 

meet the jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1491(a)(1). In order to establish jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1495, Mr. Machulas must show he was “unjustly 

convicted of an offense against the United States.” Mr. 

Machulas was convicted of a state crime, not a federal 

crime. Therefore, the Court of Federal Claims does not 

possess jurisdiction to hear Mr. Machulas’s case. Final 

Order at 6. 

The Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed Mr.

Machulas’s case for lack of jurisdiction. Because this 

court affirms the Court of Federal Claims’s dismissal

under RCFC 12(b)(1), we need not reach the dismissal 

under RCFC 12(b)(6). 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the dismissal of Mr.

Machulas’s case for lack of jurisdiction is 

AFFIRMED