NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-5137
JOHNNY L. HARRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
Johnny L. Harris, of Washington, DC, pro se.
Michael J. Dierberg, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. With
him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen,
Director; and Kathryn A. Bleecker, Assistant Director.
Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims
Judge Lawrence J. Block
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-5137
JOHNNY L. HARRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________________
DECIDED: March 8, 2007
__________________________
Before BRYSON and LINN, Circuit Judges, and ROBINSON, Chief Judge. ∗
PER CURIAM.
Johnny L. Harris (“Harris”) appeals from a decision of the United States Court of
Federal Claims dismissing Harris’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Harris v. United
States, No. 06-357 (Fed. Cl. July 19, 2006). In that decision, the Court of Federal
Claims held that Harris failed to make any meaningful allegations of facts to support his
claims against his alleged employer, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”).
Because Harris has failed to show that the Court of Federal Claims has subject matter
jurisdiction over his complaint, the decision of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.
∗
Honorable Sue L. Robinson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the District of Delaware, sitting by designation.
The Tucker Act confers jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims over claims
against the United States founded upon the Constitution, an act of Congress, a
regulation of an executive department, or an express or implied contract.
28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1). We have consistently construed this provision as limiting the Court of
Federal Claims’ jurisdiction to money-mandating claims, i.e., claims where the
Constitution, regulation, or statute require compensation by the government for any
damage sustained. Smith v. Sec’y of Army,
384 F.3d 1288, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Harris presents two arguments on appeal. First, Harris argues that the Court of
Federal Claims erred in not requiring the government to come forward with evidence to
support its motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. However, it is Harris’
burden, and not that of the government, to establish jurisdiction when faced with a
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.
of Ind.,
298 U.S. 178 (1936); Mars, Inc. v. Kabushiki-Kaisha Nippon Conlux,
24 F.3d
1368 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“A party seeking the exercise of jurisdiction in its favor bears the
burden of establishing that such jurisdiction exists.”).
Second, Harris argues that he established jurisdiction under either the Takings
Clause; Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution; or Section 4 of the Fourteenth
Amendment. To establish jurisdiction under the Takings Clause, Harris must show that
the government took a private property interest for public use without just
compensation. Adams v. United States,
391 F.3d 1212, 1218 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Although Harris alleges that he was deprived of compensation for the work he
performed in thwarting “electrophysiological slavery,” there is no evidence in the record
that he actually worked for the FBI. As the trial court found, “[t]he factual allegations
2006-5137 2
forming the basis of plaintiff’s claim of his work with the FBI simply defy any recognized
standards of logic or belief.” As concerns Harris’ other two alleged jurisdictional
predicates, neither of those constitutional provisions mandate compensation by the
government to Harris and therefore cannot confer jurisdiction in the Court of Federal
Claims. For all of the above reasons, the court did not err in dismissing Harris’ claim
and we therefore affirm.
COSTS
No costs.
2006-5137 3
