Court Opinion

ID: 9911539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 15:01:13.540047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:51:31.564183
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1872    Document: 24     Page: 1   Filed: 12/20/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                    TERESA MILLER,
                     Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2023-1872
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:23-cv-00525-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.
                  ______________________

                      ON MOTION
                  ______________________

    Before DYK, BRYSON, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
     Teresa Miller moves for leave to proceed in forma pau-
 peris (“IFP”), ECF Nos. 17 and 18. She also moves “for a
 stay or injunction in appeal,” ECF No. 21, and to allow ar-
 gument, ECF Nos. 7, 8, and 13. After consideration of the
 complaint, the judgment of the United States Court of
Case: 23-1872     Document: 24      Page: 2    Filed: 12/20/2023

 2                                                 MILLER v. US

 Federal Claims, Ms. Miller’s briefs, and the motions pa-
 pers, we deny the motions and dismiss the appeal.
     Ms. Miller was convicted in the United States District
 Court for the Northern District of West Virginia of one
 count of unlawfully possessing a firearm that was uncov-
 ered by dog sniff during a traffic stop. See United States v.
 Miller, 54 F.4th 219, 223 (4th Cir. 2022). On appeal, the
 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit va-
 cated her conviction and sentence, holding that the officer
 who conducted the traffic stop lacked a reasonable, articu-
 lable factual basis to extend the traffic stop to conduct the
 dog sniff. See id. The case was ultimately dismissed.
     In April 2023, Ms. Miller filed this suit at the Court of
 Federal Claims seeking $276,715.75 in damages to com-
 pensate for her conviction and imprisonment, including for
 the loss of employment and business revenue and for inju-
 ries related to her conviction and the conditions of her in-
 carceration. The Court of Federal Claims granted Ms.
 Miller’s motion for leave to proceed IFP, dismissed the com-
 plaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, certified under
 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal “would not be taken
 in good faith because, as alleged, [Ms. Miller]’s claims are
 outside the jurisdiction of this Court and incurable,” and
 directed the Clerk of that court to reject any future submis-
 sions in the case unless they comply with the court’s rules.
 ECF No. 19 at Appx4. This appeal followed.
     “[T]he court shall dismiss . . . if the court determines
 that . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous.” 28 U.S.C.
 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). This appeal is frivolous. The Court of
 Federal Claims was clearly correct to dismiss Ms. Miller’s
 claim for unjust conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 1495 because
 she failed to plausibly allege that “her conviction has been
 reversed or set aside on the ground that [s]he is not guilty
 of the offense of which [s]he was convicted, or on new trial
 or rehearing [s]he was found not guilty of such offense, as
 appears from the record or certificate of the court setting
Case: 23-1872     Document: 24      Page: 3    Filed: 12/20/2023

 MILLER v. US                                                3

 aside or reversing such conviction, or that [s]he has been
 pardoned,” 28 U.S.C. § 2513(a)(1). Moreover, she has not
 received a certificate required under § 2513(b). * It was also
 clearly correct that Ms. Miller’s claims of emotional dis-
 tress and other associated harms from when she was incar-
 cerated “sound[] in tort” and thus outside the limited
 jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. See 28 U.S.C.
 § 1491(a)(1); U.S. Marine, Inc. v. United States, 722 F.3d
 1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The appeal is dismissed.
     (2) All pending motions are denied.
     (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                               FOR THE COURT

 December 20, 2023
      Date

     *   We must reject Ms. Miller’s request for this court
 to direct a judge to issue her a certificate of innocence. See
 ECF No. 4 at 2–3. She points to no authority, nor are we
 aware of any, providing this court with such ability.