Harris v. United States, 16-658

Background

Pro se plaintiff Devon Thomas Harris sued the United States and various non-federal actors alleging the government implanted a device in his brain and used it to monitor and broadcast his thoughts and to experiment on him.
He named state hospitals, correctional facilities, local police departments, federal agencies (NASA, DOJ, DOD, CIA), and his mother as participants or beneficiaries of the alleged conduct.
Harris asserted a wide range of claims: conspiracies under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, criminal statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 2340, 2261A, 242), constitutional claims (Fifth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth Amendments), 42 U.S.C. § 14141, a regulatory claim under 45 C.F.R. protections for human subjects, a Takings Clause claim, and breach of contract based on an alleged contract between his mother and the United States.
He sought declaratory relief, injunctions, specific performance, and compensatory and punitive damages.
The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court granted dismissal: most claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Takings and breach-of-contract claims dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction over non-U.S. defendants	Harris sued many state/local actors and his mother as defendants or participants	Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over defendants other than the United States	Claims against non-federal parties dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Tort and criminal/statutory claims	Alleged torture, stalking, deprivation of rights under criminal statutes and tort law	Such tort and criminal-statute claims are outside the Court of Federal Claims' jurisdiction	Tort and criminal/statute-based claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Constitutional claims (Due Process, Equal Protection, Thirteenth)	Harris alleged violations of multiple constitutional provisions	These constitutional provisions are not money-mandating, so the Court lacks jurisdiction to award money damages under them	Those constitutional claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
42 U.S.C. § 14141 and regulatory claims	Alleged violations of § 14141 and human-subjects regulations	§ 14141 enforcement reserved to Attorney General; the human-subjects regulation is not money-mandating	§ 14141 and regulatory claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Takings Clause claim	Harris contended the government took his thoughts and broadcast them, invoking Fifth Amendment takings	Takings Clause protects property interests; a person’s body or thoughts are not ‘‘private property’’ for Takings Clause purposes	Takings claim dismissed for failure to state a claim (not a cognizable taking)
Breach of contract with the United States	Harris alleged his mother contracted with the U.S., causing him harm	Plaintiff failed to allege a contract with the United States conferring rights on him, terms, breach, or damages from breach	Breach of contract claim dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (jurisdiction of Court of Federal Claims limited to suits against the United States)
Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (tort cases outside the Court of Federal Claims' jurisdiction)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se complaints held to less stringent standards)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility pleading standard)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must raise right to relief above speculative level)
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (statutes or regulations must be money-mandating to support Tucker Act jurisdiction)
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Republic of the United States, 537 U.S. 465 (interpretation of money-mandating obligations)
LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (money-mandating constitutional provisions requirement)
Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (limitations on constitutional claims in the Court of Federal Claims)
Kam-Almaz v. United States, 682 F.3d 1364 (elements required to state a breach-of-contract claim against the United States)