McLarnon v. United States, 21-1080

Plaintiff Edward McLarnon, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, sued the United States and numerous individual court actors alleging due process violations and breach of contractual obligations arising from his criminal prosecution and imprisonment.
The complaint names judges, prosecutors, FBI agents, court‑appointed attorneys, court reporters, and other individuals in addition to the United States.
Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; briefing was stayed on plaintiff’s summary‑judgment motion pending resolution of jurisdiction.
The Court of Federal Claims reviewed whether it had jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and related authority to hear collateral challenges to criminal proceedings, due process claims, and contract remedies sought here.
The court concluded it lacks jurisdiction to review other courts’ decisions, lacks jurisdiction over criminal‑law and due process damages claims, and that only the United States (not individual officers) is a proper defendant in this court.
Judgment: complaint dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; plaintiff’s summary‑judgment and in forma pauperis motions denied as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court of Federal Claims may review and undo prior state or federal court criminal decisions	McLarnon seeks collateral relief from prior criminal proceedings through this suit	Court lacks authority as an appellate tribunal and cannot review or reverse other courts’ judgments	Dismissed — no jurisdiction to review decisions of other courts
Whether the court has jurisdiction over criminal‑code violations and due process damages	Alleges criminal violations and due‑process injuries from prosecution and incarceration	Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over criminal matters; Due Process Clauses are not money‑mandating	Dismissed — no jurisdiction over criminal matters or due‑process damages
Whether individual officers and non‑United States defendants are proper parties	Sued many individuals involved in his prosecution and imprisonment	In the Claims Court only the United States is the proper defendant	Dismissed as to non‑United States defendants — only the U.S. may be sued here
Whether specific performance is an available remedy for alleged breach of contract against the United States	Styles part of the complaint as a contract claim seeking specific performance	Tucker Act and precedent limit the court to monetary relief; specific performance is unavailable	Specific performance not available; claim cannot be granted in this court

United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (sovereign immunity; only United States is proper defendant)
United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocal)
United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not create substantive causes of action)
James v. Caldera, 159 F.3d 573 (money‑mandating source required to support Tucker Act damages)
LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Due Process Clauses are not money‑mandating)
Harris v. United States, 868 F.3d 1376 (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over criminal claims)
Sanders v. United States, 252 F.3d 1329 (criminal‑law claims fall outside Claims Court jurisdiction)
United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1 (specific performance not available in the Claims Court)