Court Opinion

ID: 9375361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 16:01:14.719927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:58.267048
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-1872     Document: 34    Page: 1    Filed: 02/27/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                KEVIN LAMONTE BREWER,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                     UNITED STATES,
                     Defendant-Appellee
                   ______________________

                         2021-1872
                   ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:20-cv-01209-ZNS, Judge Zachary N. Somers.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: February 27, 2023
                  ______________________

    KEVIN    BREWER,     Grand    Prairie,    TX,   pro   se.

     JOSEPH ALAN PIXLEY, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, DEBORAH ANN BYNUM, MARTIN F.
 HOCKEY, JR.
                   ______________________

  Before NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
Case: 21-1872     Document: 34     Page: 2    Filed: 02/27/2023

 2                                               BREWER   v. US

 PER CURIAM.
     Kevin Lamonte Brewer appeals from the final decision
 of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing
 his complaint for monetary relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1495.
 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the dismissal of
 Mr. Brewer’s complaint.
                        BACKGROUND
     Section 1495 provides that the Court of Federal Claims
 “shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim
 for damages by any person unjustly convicted of an offense
 against the United States and imprisoned.” A companion
 statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2513, provides that any person suing
 under § 1495 must allege and prove, among other things,
 that his conviction has been reversed and that “his acts,
 deeds, or omissions in connection with the charge on which
 he was convicted constituted no offense against the United
 States, or any State . . . .” A plaintiff can prove these nec-
 essary facts by obtaining a certificate of innocence from the
 federal district court that has jurisdiction over the alleg-
 edly improper imprisonment.
      In this case, Mr. Brewer was charged and convicted in
 the United States District Court for the Western District of
 Arkansas, and then imprisoned, for failing to register as a
 sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and No-
 tification Act (SORNA), codified at 34 U.S.C. § 20911 et seq.
 Mr. Brewer successfully challenged his conviction as un-
 lawfully applying SORNA retroactively to his case. United
 States v. Brewer, 766 F.3d 884, 892 (8th Cir. 2014).
     On September 16, 2020, Mr. Brewer filed a complaint
 seeking monetary relief under § 1495. To support his
 claim, Mr. Brewer filed a request for a certificate of inno-
 cence from the Western District of Arkansas. That court
 denied his request, on the grounds that Mr. Brewer had
 “not demonstrated that his own misconduct or neglect did
 not cause his prosecution” and also because his “conduct
Case: 21-1872     Document: 34      Page: 3     Filed: 02/27/2023

 BREWER   v. US                                                3

 was a violation of state law.” United States v. Brewer,
 No. 6:09-CR-60007-RTD, 2020 WL 8267582, at *2 (W.D.
 Ark. Dec. 10, 2021), adopted in full, 2021 WL 261541 (Jan.
 26, 2021). Mr. Brewer appealed that decision to the Eighth
 Circuit.
     While his appeal to the Eighth Circuit was pending,
 Mr. Brewer requested that the Court of Federal Claims
 stay the proceedings on his complaint. The Court of Fed-
 eral Claims declined to do so, holding that the district
 court’s denial of the requested certificate of innocence
 meant that Mr. Brewer could not bring a § 1495 complaint
 in the Court of Federal Claims. Brewer v. United States,
 No. 20-1209, 2021 WL 655432, at *2–3 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 19,
 2021). Specifically, the Court of Federal Claims deter-
 mined that without the certificate of innocence, Mr. Brewer
 could not make the requisite showing for his § 1495 claim.
 Accordingly, the court sua sponte dismissed under its own
 Rule 12(h)(3) for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id.
 at *2 (citing, among other cases, Grayson v. United States,
 141 Ct. Cl. 866, 869 (1958)).
     Mr. Brewer timely appealed. We have jurisdiction un-
 der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
                          DISCUSSION
     On appeal to this court, Mr. Brewer argues that the
 Court of Federal Claims should have granted a stay to al-
 low resolution of his appeal to the Eighth Circuit and asks
 us to also stay this case until final resolution of that appeal.
 Appellant’s Br. 1–2. After Mr. Brewer appealed to this
 court but before the case was submitted for decision, the
 Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of his re-
 quest for a certificate of innocence.           United States
 v. Brewer, 853 F. App’x 46, 46 (8th Cir. 2021). Shortly after
 Mr. Brewer’s appeal to this court was submitted for deci-
 sion, the Supreme Court denied his petition for certiorari
 regarding the Eighth Circuit’s decision. Brewer v. United
 States, 142 S. Ct. 1242 (2022).
Case: 21-1872     Document: 34       Page: 4    Filed: 02/27/2023

 4                                                 BREWER   v. US

     We agree with the Court of Federal Claims that
 Mr. Brewer’s claim for monetary relief under § 1495 cannot
 succeed without him having been granted a certificate of
 innocence. 28 U.S.C. § 2513(b) (“Proof of the requisite facts
 shall be by a certificate of the court . . . wherein such facts
 are alleged to appear, and other evidence thereof shall not
 be received.”); see also, e.g., Sykes v. United States, 105 Fed.
 Cl. 231, 233 (2012) (“[A]n unjust conviction and imprison-
 ment claim must be established by either a certificate
 granted by the court of conviction or a pardon.”).
 Mr. Brewer has now exhausted all remedies in seeking a
 certificate of innocence. Accordingly, because Mr. Brewer
 cannot prove the facts necessary to succeed on his § 1495
 claim, we affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of
 his complaint.
                          CONCLUSION
     We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For these reasons, we affirm
 the final judgment of the Court of Federal Claims.
                         AFFIRMED
                             COSTS
 No costs.