Harris v. United States, 17-1247

Plaintiff Michael Harris, proceeding pro se, sued the United States alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1701 based on alleged failures by the California state courts or the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office to effectuate service and to mail deficiency notices in a pending state-court civil case against LAPD and Walgreens.
Harris sought money damages (greater of $5,000,000 or the value of the Adamson House) and an order directing federal postal investigators and a U.S. Attorney to investigate/prosecute.
Harris moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915; the court granted that motion for filing-status purposes.
The Court of Federal Claims reviewed jurisdiction under the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491) and § 1915(e)(2)(B) screening standards for frivolous or noncognizable claims.
The court concluded Harris alleged wrongdoing by state actors and asserted only criminal statutes; he did not identify a separate source of substantive law creating a right to money damages against the United States.
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and as legally frivolous/unmeritorious, and ordered judgment for the defendant; no costs were awarded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over Harris’s monetary claims based on alleged mail fraud/obstruction by state actors	Harris contends the state courts or sheriff’s office obstructed mail and violated federal criminal statutes, entitling him to damages	The United States argued the complaint alleges actions by state/local actors and criminal statutes, which do not invoke Tucker Act jurisdiction against the U.S.	Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the court cannot adjudicate claims against state actors or under the federal criminal code in this forum
Whether Harris may obtain injunctive relief compelling USPS investigators or a U.S. Attorney to act	Harris sought an order directing postal police to investigate and to forward findings to a U.S. Attorney	The government argued the Court of Federal Claims lacks general equitable authority and the Tucker Act does not authorize such injunctions here	Dismissed: court lacks authority to grant the requested equitable relief
Whether the complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim under § 1915 screening	Harris argued his filings and receipt issues show obstruction/illegal conduct warranting relief	The government maintained the claims lack a legal basis in this court and are outside its jurisdiction	Dismissed as frivolous/unmeritorious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746 (Fed. Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
Kelley v. Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378 (Fed. Cir.) (pro se leniency does not excuse jurisdictional requirements)
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity but does not create substantive rights)
United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act does not by itself confer substantive causes of action)
Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Fed. Cir.) (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate federal criminal code claims)
United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (claims against non-federal parties must be disregarded for Tucker Act jurisdiction)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (definition of frivolous claims under screening statutes)
Galloway Farms, Inc. v. United States, 834 F.2d 998 (Fed. Cir.) (frivolousness defined; disposition obvious)
Gray v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 95 (2005) (dismissal required when court lacks jurisdiction)