Court Opinion

ID: 9839533
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 15:02:12.096378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.439477
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1115   Document: 23     Page: 1   Filed: 08/10/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                SERGIUS A. SHEAKLEY,
                   Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                   UNITED STATES,
                   Defendant-Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2023-1115
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:22-cv-01405-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink.
                  ______________________

                Decided: August 10, 2023
                 ______________________

    SERGIUS A. SHEAKLEY, Wasilla, AK, pro se.

    MILES KARSON, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
 DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by REGINALD
 THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                 ______________________

    Before PROST, WALLACH, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1115    Document: 23      Page: 2    Filed: 08/10/2023

 2                                            SHEAKLEY v. US

 PER CURIAM.
      Sergius Sheakley (“Mr. Sheakley,” “Plaintiff,” or “Ap-
 pellant”) appeals the decision of the United States Court of
 Federal Claims (“Court of Federal Claims” or “CFC”),
 which sua sponte ordered dismissal of his case against the
 United States (“Defendant” or “Appellee”) for lack of sub-
 ject matter jurisdiction. See Sheakley v. United States, No.
 1:22-cv-01405-EGB (Fed. Cl. Oct. 5, 2022) (“Order”), ECF
 No. 1 6, at 1–2 (Appx. 2 4–5). We affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
      On September 29, 2022, the Court of Federal Claims
 received Mr. Sheakley’s three-page pro se complaint. See
 Appx. 1–3 (“Complaint”). The Complaint alleges that,
 without indictment or probable cause, Mr. Sheakley be-
 came incarcerated in Alaska on or about November 25,
 2014. Appx. 2. Among other things, he insists that “the
 United States failed to do it[s] duty to defend Mr. Sheak-
 ley’s federally protected rights, and refrained from taking
 steps to prevent Mr. Sheakley’s injury, by breach of con-
 tract.” Appx. 2.
     On October 5, 2022, the Court of Federal Claims dis-
 missed Mr. Sheakley’s Complaint against the United
 States for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Order at
 1–2 (Appx. 4–5). In its Order, the Court of Federal Claims
 noted that Mr. Sheakley alleged that “the State of Alaska
 and its officers violated his civil rights by denying him his
 right to a speedy trial and by preventing him from attend-
 ing his hearings” and that he requested the court “to ‘waive’
 Alaska’s sovereign immunity and grant him a restraining

     1   “ECF No.” refers to the electronic filing system’s
 docket number assigned to a filing at the Court of Federal
 Claims.
     2   “Appx.” refers to the appendix that the United
 States filed concurrently with its informal brief.
Case: 23-1115     Document: 23     Page: 3    Filed: 08/10/2023

 SHEAKLEY v. US                                             3

 order against the State.” Appx. 4. The trial court con-
 cluded that it could not hear a suit against a state or its
 officials under the Tucker Act, and that Mr. Sheakley’s
 claims were against Alaskan officers even if the United
 States was the listed Defendant. Appx. 4.
     We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) and
 Mr. Sheakley timely appealed. See Appellant’s Informal
 Br. 1.
                         DISCUSSION
                   I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
     We review de novo the final decision of the Court of
 Federal Claims to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and a
 “plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject-matter
 jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” M.
 Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323,
 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “Subject matter jurisdiction is a
 threshold requirement for a court’s power to exercise juris-
 diction over a case . . . .” Dow Jones & Co. v. Ablaise Ltd.,
 606 F.3d 1338, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A plaintiff must es-
 tablish jurisdiction because under Rule 12(h)(3) of the
 Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”), “[i]f the
 court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
 jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
 RCFC 12(h)(3) (emphasis added). Although a pro se com-
 plaint is held to “less stringent standards than formal
 pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
 97, 106 (1976) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
 520–21 (1972)), the jurisdictional requirement remains the
 same for both a pro se litigant and a represented party. See
 Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380
 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
   II. THE UNITED STATES IS NOT THE PROPER DEFENDANT
                          HERE.
     Under the Tucker Act, the “Court of Federal Claims
 shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim
Case: 23-1115      Document: 23      Page: 4     Filed: 08/10/2023

 4                                               SHEAKLEY v. US

 against the United States founded either upon the Consti-
 tution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an exec-
 utive 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); 3 see also Killingsworth Env’t, Inc. v. United
 States, 18 F. App’x 898, 898 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he Court
 of Federal Claims correctly held that it has jurisdiction
 over an action if the ‘United States’ is named by the plain-
 tiff as the defendant and not if actions of a state or state
 officials are challenged.”). Because the United States is the
 only “proper defendant” at the Court of Federal Claims, the
 trial court “lacks jurisdiction over states, state officials,
 and state agencies.” Lawton v. United States, 621 F. App’x
 671, 672 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sherwood,
 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941)).
      Although his Complaint names the United States as
 Defendant, Mr. Sheakley sets forth allegations against “the
 State” and its officers (e.g., state-appointed counsel) for “vi-
 olat[ing] his civil rights by denying him his right to a
 speedy trial and by preventing him from attending his
 hearings” after his incarceration began in Alaska. Order
 at 1 (Appx. 4); see generally Complaint (Appx. 1–3). In
 other words, Mr. Sheakley “sue[d] the State of Alaska and
 its officers—not the United States.” Order at 1 (Appx. 4);
 see also Appellee’s Informal Br. 3 (citing and noting the
 same). For example, Mr. Sheakley appears to allege breach
 of express or implied contract with either the State of
 Alaska or its officials; thus, he fails to establish jurisdiction
 where there is no claimed breach of express or implied con-
 tract with the United States. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(a)(2),
 1491(a)(1); see generally Appx. 1–3.

     3   To the extent Mr. Sheakley alleges fraud, see Appx.
 1, the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction
 over a claim sounding in tort. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
Case: 23-1115      Document: 23      Page: 5     Filed: 08/10/2023

 SHEAKLEY v. US                                                 5

     Similarly, Mr. Sheakley seeks to recover under the pro-
 visions for “[d]amages for unjust conviction and imprison-
 ment; claim against United States,” and “[u]njust
 conviction and imprisonment.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1495,
 2513. Mr. Sheakley cannot recover because the United
 States is not the proper party here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1495
 (“The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have ju-
 risdiction to render judgment upon any claim for damages
 by any person unjustly convicted of an offense against the
 United States and imprisoned.” (emphasis added)). In
 turn, Mr. Sheakley cannot recover under the provision re-
 lating to unjust conviction and imprisonment because this
 provision applies to a person suing under 28 U.S.C. § 1495.
 See 28 U.S.C. § 2513(a), (e).
      Thus, the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed
 Mr. Sheakley’s Complaint because the United States can-
 not be the “proper defendant” in this suit and the trial court
 did not have jurisdiction over the State of Alaska or its of-
 ficials.
   III. MR. SHEAKLEY’S ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS FAIL TO
   ESTABLISH A JURISDICTIONAL BASIS FOR THE COURT OF
                    FEDERAL CLAIMS.
      First, Mr. Sheakley says the Court of Federal Claims
 failed to consider his “$20,000,000.00 and not
 $1,000,000.00” in monetary damages. See Appellant’s In-
 formal Br. 2. For the Court of Federal Claims, “[j]urisdic-
 tion is proper where a plaintiff makes a claim for money
 damages based on a ‘money-mandating’ source of substan-
 tive law 4 and alleges that he is ‘within the class of plaintiffs

     4   “The Tucker Act itself does not create a substantive
 cause of action; in 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
Case: 23-1115     Document: 23      Page: 6    Filed: 08/10/2023

 6                                              SHEAKLEY v. US

 entitled to recover under the money-mandating source.’”
 Antonellis v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 112, 114 (2012)
 (quoting Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. F.A.A., 525 F.3d
 1299, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2008)), aff’d, 723 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir.
 2013). Mr. Sheakley fails to either link his claims to
 money-mandating sources of law or establish that he is
 even entitled to recover as Plaintiff. See generally Appx. 1–
 3.
      Second, Mr. Sheakley appears to allege violations un-
 der the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause as well as
 its takings clause. The Court of Federal Claims does not
 have jurisdiction over a due process violation because this
 clause is not a money-mandating source. See LeBlanc v.
 United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (conclud-
 ing that because the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause
 does “not mandate payment of money by the government,”
 it is an “[in]sufficient basis for jurisdiction”). On the other
 hand, while the takings clause is a money mandating pro-
 vision which could provide a jurisdictional basis for the
 Court of Federal Claims, see Elkins v. United States, 229
 Ct. Cl. 607, 608 (1981) (per curiam) (“[E]xcept for the tak-
 ing clause of the [F]ifth [A]mendment, the other amend-
 ments do not require the United States to pay money for
 their alleged violation.”), Mr. Sheakley fails to plausibly
 plead that his property was taken by the United States.
 Further, Mr. Sheakley cites to Alaska case law for author-
 ity that “the appropriation of the attorney’s labor is a ‘tak-
 ing’ under the provisions of Alaska Constitution article I,
 section 18.” DeLisio v. Alaska Superior Ct., 740 P.2d 437,
 443 (Alaska 1987) (emphasis added). However, “the
 Tucker Act only provides for jurisdiction for claims arising
 under the United States Constitution, not state constitu-
 tions.” Kurt v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 384, 388 (2012)

 the right to money damages.” Fisher v. United States, 402
 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (emphasis added).
Case: 23-1115     Document: 23     Page: 7    Filed: 08/10/2023

 SHEAKLEY v. US                                             7

 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491). Additionally, DeLisio does not
 support Mr. Sheakley’s assertion, in that the court held
 that “an attorney’s services are ‘property’” with respect to
 the attorney’s right to just compensation for providing legal
 services, not that they are a property right of the criminal
 defendant. See DeLisio, 740 P.2d at 441. Accordingly, the
 Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over Mr.
 Sheakley’s takings claim because any alleged taking was
 committed not by the United States, but instead by Alaska
 or its officials.
      Third, Mr. Sheakley appears to allege violations under
 the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. See
 Appellant’s Informal Reply 2. Despite these arguments
 first appearing in Mr. Sheakley’s reply, 5 the Court of Fed-
 eral Claims once again lacks jurisdiction because these
 Amendments are not money-mandating. 6 See Elkins, 229
 Ct. Cl. at 608.
     Fourth, Mr. Sheakley says that he is an “Alaska Na-
 tive,” 7 that the “Treaty of Cession” was violated based on

     5   “With a few notable exceptions, such as some juris-
 dictional matters, appellate courts do not consider a party’s
 new theories, lodged first on appeal.” Sage Prods., Inc. v.
 Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
     6   Mr. Sheakley failed to include the First, Fourth,
 Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments in his Complaint. See
 Appx. 1–3. Accordingly, the Court of Federal Claims could
 not consider them before its sua sponte dismissal. To the
 extent these Constitutional amendments are examined in
 this opinion, we do so to acknowledge that amending the
 Complaint to add them would be futile because they do not
 assist the trial court in having jurisdiction over this case.
     7   Mr. Sheakley also lists “28 U.S.C. § 1505 (Indian
 claims)” as an additional argument for the first time in his
 reply brief. See Appellant’s Informal Reply 2. Although
 this provision allows the Court of Federal Claims to hear
Case: 23-1115     Document: 23      Page: 8    Filed: 08/10/2023

 8                                              SHEAKLEY v. US

 the “intentional disregard to Mr. Sheakley’s civil rights,”
 and that “the United States failed to do it[s] duty to defend
 Mr. Sheakley’s federally protected rights, and refrained
 from taking steps to prevent Mr. Sheakley’s injury, by
 breach of contract.” Appx. 1–2 (emphasis added). Here,
 Mr. Sheakley fails to meet his jurisdictional burden when
 claiming that the United States breached the Treaty of
 Cession under the cited provisions of Articles III and VI.
 See generally Treaty concerning the Cession of the Russian
 Possessions in North America by his Majesty the Emperor
 of all the Russias to the United States of America (“Treaty
 of Cession”), 15 Stat. 539, arts. III & VI. Specifically, Mr.
 Sheakley fails to establish jurisdiction by neither showing
 how Articles III and VI of the Treaty of Cession are money-
 mandating sources nor indicating how he is within the
 class of plaintiffs that could recover under them. See gen-
 erally Appx. 1–3.
     Accordingly, Mr. Sheakley fails to meet his jurisdic-
 tional requirement for his other claims, so dismissal of Mr.
 Sheakley’s Complaint remains proper.
     IV. THE COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS CANNOT GIVE MR.
         SHEAKLEY THE EQUITABLE RELIEF HE SEEKS.
     In his Complaint, Mr. Sheakley requested the following
 relief: “Waive the sovereign immunity for State of Alaska
 for violation of expressed promise. Grant Mr. Sheakley a
 preliminary injunction, and [g]rant Mr. Sheakley a re-
 strai[ni]ng Order against the State of Alaska, for breach of
 contract.” Appx. 3.

 Indian claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1505, Mr. Sheakley did not
 include it in his Complaint so he failed to establish how he
 could be entitled to recover within the class of plaintiffs un-
 der it, and the Court of Federal Claims could not even en-
 tertain this argument. See generally Appx. 1–3.
Case: 23-1115     Document: 23       Page: 9   Filed: 08/10/2023

 SHEAKLEY v. US                                               9

      Mr. Sheakley insists that “[t]he trial judge only consid-
 ered the relief and not the arguments, or the counts.” Ap-
 pellant’s Informal Br. 2. The United States asserts that
 the Court of Federal Claims does not have the authority to
 grant the relief that Mr. Sheakley requests against Alaska
 or its officials. Appellee’s Informal Br. 5 (collecting cases).
     We agree with the United States. For example, “[t]he
 Tucker Act does not provide independent jurisdiction over
 such claims for equitable relief.” Brown v. United States,
 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (finding that the declar-
 atory or injunctive relief sought by a plaintiff was “outside
 the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims”); see also
 Lawton, 621 F. App’x at 672 (acknowledging that the Court
 of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over states or
 their officials). Even if the Court of Federal Claims did con-
 sider Mr. Sheakley’s requested relief when determining ju-
 risdiction, it would provide none.
                         CONCLUSION
     We have considered Mr. Sheakley’s remaining argu-
 ments and find them unpersuasive. For the above reasons,
 the decision of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.
                         AFFIRMED
                             COSTS
 No costs.