Harris v. United States
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16481
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Lt. Daniel Harris, a Navy officer since 2005, was arrested by civilian authorities on Nov. 12, 2013, on sexual-offense charges and remained in civilian confinement until his conviction and sentencing on July 13, 2015.
- During pre-trial and post-conviction confinement the Navy withheld his pay; after conviction the Navy determined his absence was "not excused as unavoidable" under 37 U.S.C. § 503 and DoD Financial Management Regulation (DoD FMR) tables, and denied back pay.
- Harris sued in the Court of Federal Claims seeking back pay under the Military Pay Act, and asserted Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment due process claims; he also challenged the civilian court’s jurisdiction to try him.
- The government moved to dismiss and the trial court stayed discovery as premature; the court dismissed Harris’s complaint for failure to state a claim under the Military Pay Act, failure to state a due process claim, and for lack of jurisdiction to review the criminal conviction.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed: discovery denial was not an abuse of discretion; DoD FMR and prior precedent treat confinement entitlement based on case outcome (conviction -> not excused); no separate due process claim where entitlement is statutory; CFC lacks jurisdiction to review criminal convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery was required before resolving dismissal motions | Harris said discovery could show his CO had placed him on "unavailable but unavoidable" status entitling him to pay | Gov't said legal issues (statutory/regulatory interpretation, jurisdiction) could be decided without discovery | Court: protective order and stay of discovery not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Harris is entitled to back pay under the Military Pay Act for pre-trial confinement | Harris argued DoD regs are ambiguous and do not clearly deny pay for pre-conviction confinement | Gov't relied on 37 U.S.C. § 503 and DoD FMR Tables 1-12/1-13 (Rule 6) interpreting entitlement by ultimate disposition; convicted -> not excused -> no pay | Court: rules apply to entire confinement period; conviction bars entitlement to back pay |
| Whether withholding pay without a pre-deprivation hearing violated due process | Harris argued lack of hearing violated Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment rights | Gov't: pay entitlement is defined by statute/regulation and depends on case outcome; no statute grants pre-withdrawal hearing | Court: no due process claim—entitlement is statutory and no separate money-mandating due process right asserted |
| Whether Court of Federal Claims may review civilian criminal jurisdiction/conviction | Harris challenged civilian court jurisdiction to prosecute him as a service member | Gov't: CFC lacks jurisdiction to review criminal convictions or district court decisions | Court: CFC lacks jurisdiction to review convictions or district court proceedings; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Matthews v. United States, 750 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir.) (civilian confinement of a service member who is tried and convicted is not "unavoidable" and bars back pay)
- Dock v. United States, 46 F.3d 1083 (Fed. Cir.) (military pay and benefits are defined by statute)
- Rick's Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for discovery denials)
- Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. United States, 669 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir.) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Sanders v. United States, 252 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir.) (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to review criminal convictions)
- Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Fed. Cir.) (CFC lacks jurisdiction to review district court proceedings)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act jurisdiction and plaintiff's burden to establish money-mandating source)