Sheakley v. United States ( 2023 )

Case: 23-1115 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 08/10/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SERGIUS A. SHEAKLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1115
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-01405-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink.
______________________
Decided: August 10, 2023
______________________
SERGIUS A. SHEAKLEY, Wasilla, AK, pro se.
MILES KARSON, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation
Branch, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by REGINALD
THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before PROST, WALLACH, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1115 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 08/10/2023
2 SHEAKLEY v. US
PER CURIAM.
Sergius Sheakley (“Mr. Sheakley,” “Plaintiff,” or “Ap-
pellant”) appeals the decision of the United States Court of
Federal Claims (“Court of Federal Claims” or “CFC”),
which sua sponte ordered dismissal of his case against the
United States (“Defendant” or “Appellee”) for lack of sub-
ject matter jurisdiction. See Sheakley v. United States, No.
1:22-cv-01405-EGB (Fed. Cl. Oct. 5, 2022) (“Order”), ECF
No. 1 6, at 1–2 (Appx. 2 4–5). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On September 29, 2022, the Court of Federal Claims
received Mr. Sheakley’s three-page pro se complaint. See
Appx. 1–3 (“Complaint”). The Complaint alleges that,
without indictment or probable cause, Mr. Sheakley be-
came incarcerated in Alaska on or about November 25,
2014. Appx. 2. Among other things, he insists that “the
United States failed to do it[s] duty to defend Mr. Sheak-
ley’s federally protected rights, and refrained from taking
steps to prevent Mr. Sheakley’s injury, by breach of con-
tract.” Appx. 2.
On October 5, 2022, the Court of Federal Claims dis-
missed Mr. Sheakley’s Complaint against the United
States for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Order at
1–2 (Appx. 4–5). In its Order, the Court of Federal Claims
noted that Mr. Sheakley alleged that “the State of Alaska
and its officers violated his civil rights by denying him his
right to a speedy trial and by preventing him from attend-
ing his hearings” and that he requested the court “to ‘waive’
Alaska’s sovereign immunity and grant him a restraining
1 “ECF No.” refers to the electronic filing system’s
docket number assigned to a filing at the Court of Federal
Claims.
2 “Appx.” refers to the appendix that the United
States filed concurrently with its informal brief.
Case: 23-1115 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 08/10/2023
SHEAKLEY v. US 3
order against the State.” Appx. 4. The trial court con-
cluded that it could not hear a suit against a state or its
officials under the Tucker Act, and that Mr. Sheakley’s
claims were against Alaskan officers even if the United
States was the listed Defendant. Appx. 4.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) and
Mr. Sheakley timely appealed. See Appellant’s Informal
Br. 1.
DISCUSSION
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo the final decision of the Court of
Federal Claims to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and a
“plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject-matter
jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” M.
Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323,
1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “Subject matter jurisdiction is a
threshold requirement for a court’s power to exercise juris-
diction over a case . . . .” Dow Jones & Co. v. Ablaise Ltd.,
606 F.3d 1338, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A plaintiff must es-
tablish jurisdiction because under Rule 12(h)(3) of the
Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”), “[i]f the
court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
RCFC 12(h)(3) (emphasis added). Although a pro se com-
plaint is held to “less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520–21 (1972)), the jurisdictional requirement remains the
same for both a pro se litigant and a represented party. See
Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
II. THE UNITED STATES IS NOT THE PROPER DEFENDANT
HERE.
Under the Tucker Act, the “Court of Federal Claims
shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim
Case: 23-1115 Document: 23 Page: 4 Filed: 08/10/2023
4 SHEAKLEY v. US
against the United States founded either upon the Consti-
tution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an exec-
utive department, or upon any express or implied contract
with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated
damages in cases not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1); 3 see also Killingsworth Env’t, Inc. v. United
States, 18 F. App’x 898, 898 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he Court
of Federal Claims correctly held that it has jurisdiction
over an action if the ‘United States’ is named by the plain-
tiff as the defendant and not if actions of a state or state
officials are challenged.”). Because the United States is the
only “proper defendant” at the Court of Federal Claims, the
trial court “lacks jurisdiction over states, state officials,
and state agencies.” Lawton v. United States, 621 F. App’x
671, 672 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Sherwood,
312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941)).
Although his Complaint names the United States as
Defendant, Mr. Sheakley sets forth allegations against “the
State” and its officers (e.g., state-appointed counsel) for “vi-
olat[ing] his civil rights by denying him his right to a
speedy trial and by preventing him from attending his
hearings” after his incarceration began in Alaska. Order
at 1 (Appx. 4); see generally Complaint (Appx. 1–3). In
other words, Mr. Sheakley “sue[d] the State of Alaska and
its officers—not the United States.” Order at 1 (Appx. 4);
see also Appellee’s Informal Br. 3 (citing and noting the
same). For example, Mr. Sheakley appears to allege breach
of express or implied contract with either the State of
Alaska or its officials; thus, he fails to establish jurisdiction
where there is no claimed breach of express or implied con-
tract with the United States. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(a)(2),
1491(a)(1); see generally Appx. 1–3.
3 To the extent Mr. Sheakley alleges fraud, see Appx.
1, the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction
over a claim sounding in tort. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
Case: 23-1115 Document: 23 Page: 5 Filed: 08/10/2023
SHEAKLEY v. US 5
Similarly, Mr. Sheakley seeks to recover under the pro-
visions for “[d]amages for unjust conviction and imprison-
ment; claim against United States,” and “[u]njust
conviction and imprisonment.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1495,
2513. Mr. Sheakley cannot recover because the United
States is not the proper party here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1495(“The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have ju-
risdiction to render judgment upon any claim for damages
by any person unjustly convicted of an offense against the
United States and imprisoned.” (emphasis added)). In
turn, Mr. Sheakley cannot recover under the provision re-
lating to unjust conviction and imprisonment because this
provision applies to a person suing under 28 U.S.C. § 1495.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2513(a), (e).
Thus, the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed
Mr. Sheakley’s Complaint because the United States can-
not be the “proper defendant” in this suit and the trial court
did not have jurisdiction over the State of Alaska or its of-
ficials.
III. MR. SHEAKLEY’S ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS FAIL TO
ESTABLISH A JURISDICTIONAL BASIS FOR THE COURT OF
FEDERAL CLAIMS.
First, Mr. Sheakley says the Court of Federal Claims
failed to consider his “$20,000,000.00 and not
$1,000,000.00” in monetary damages. See Appellant’s In-
formal Br. 2. For the Court of Federal Claims, “[j]urisdic-
tion is proper where a plaintiff makes a claim for money
damages based on a ‘money-mandating’ source of substan-
tive law 4 and alleges that he is ‘within the class of plaintiffs
4 “The Tucker Act itself does not create a substantive
cause of action; in order to come within the jurisdictional
reach and the waiver of the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must
identify a separate source of substantive law that creates
Case: 23-1115 Document: 23 Page: 6 Filed: 08/10/2023
6 SHEAKLEY v. US
entitled to recover under the money-mandating source.’”
Antonellis v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 112, 114 (2012)
(quoting Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. F.A.A., 525 F.3d
1299, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2008)), aff’d, 723 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir.
2013). Mr. Sheakley fails to either link his claims to
money-mandating sources of law or establish that he is
even entitled to recover as Plaintiff. See generally Appx. 1–
3.
Second, Mr. Sheakley appears to allege violations un-
der the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause as well as
its takings clause. The Court of Federal Claims does not
have jurisdiction over a due process violation because this
clause is not a money-mandating source. See LeBlanc v.
United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (conclud-
ing that because the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause
does “not mandate payment of money by the government,”
it is an “[in]sufficient basis for jurisdiction”). On the other
hand, while the takings clause is a money mandating pro-
vision which could provide a jurisdictional basis for the
Court of Federal Claims, see Elkins v. United States, 229
Ct. Cl. 607, 608 (1981) (per curiam) (“[E]xcept for the tak-
ing clause of the [F]ifth [A]mendment, the other amend-
ments do not require the United States to pay money for
their alleged violation.”), Mr. Sheakley fails to plausibly
plead that his property was taken by the United States.
Further, Mr. Sheakley cites to Alaska case law for author-
ity that “the appropriation of the attorney’s labor is a ‘tak-
ing’ under the provisions of Alaska Constitution article I,
section 18.” DeLisio v. Alaska Superior Ct., 740 P.2d 437,
443 (Alaska 1987) (emphasis added). However, “the
Tucker Act only provides for jurisdiction for claims arising
under the United States Constitution, not state constitu-
tions.” Kurt v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 384, 388 (2012)
the right to money damages.” Fisher v. United States, 402
F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (emphasis added).
Case: 23-1115 Document: 23 Page: 7 Filed: 08/10/2023
SHEAKLEY v. US 7
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491). Additionally, DeLisio does not
support Mr. Sheakley’s assertion, in that the court held
that “an attorney’s services are ‘property’” with respect to
the attorney’s right to just compensation for providing legal
services, not that they are a property right of the criminal
defendant. See DeLisio, 740 P.2d at 441. Accordingly, the
Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over Mr.
Sheakley’s takings claim because any alleged taking was
committed not by the United States, but instead by Alaska
or its officials.
Third, Mr. Sheakley appears to allege violations under
the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. See
Appellant’s Informal Reply 2. Despite these arguments
first appearing in Mr. Sheakley’s reply, 5 the Court of Fed-
eral Claims once again lacks jurisdiction because these
Amendments are not money-mandating. 6 See Elkins, 229
Ct. Cl. at 608.
Fourth, Mr. Sheakley says that he is an “Alaska Na-
tive,” 7 that the “Treaty of Cession” was violated based on
5 “With a few notable exceptions, such as some juris-
dictional matters, appellate courts do not consider a party’s
new theories, lodged first on appeal.” Sage Prods., Inc. v.
Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
6 Mr. Sheakley failed to include the First, Fourth,
Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments in his Complaint. See
Appx. 1–3. Accordingly, the Court of Federal Claims could
not consider them before its sua sponte dismissal. To the
extent these Constitutional amendments are examined in
this opinion, we do so to acknowledge that amending the
Complaint to add them would be futile because they do not
assist the trial court in having jurisdiction over this case.
7 Mr. Sheakley also lists “28 U.S.C. § 1505 (Indian
claims)” as an additional argument for the first time in his
reply brief. See Appellant’s Informal Reply 2. Although
this provision allows the Court of Federal Claims to hear
Case: 23-1115 Document: 23 Page: 8 Filed: 08/10/2023
8 SHEAKLEY v. US
the “intentional disregard to Mr. Sheakley’s civil rights,”
and that “the United States failed to do it[s] duty to defend
Mr. Sheakley’s federally protected rights, and refrained
from taking steps to prevent Mr. Sheakley’s injury, by
breach of contract.” Appx. 1–2 (emphasis added). Here,
Mr. Sheakley fails to meet his jurisdictional burden when
claiming that the United States breached the Treaty of
Cession under the cited provisions of Articles III and VI.
See generally Treaty concerning the Cession of the Russian
Possessions in North America by his Majesty the Emperor
of all the Russias to the United States of America (“Treaty
of Cession”), 15 Stat. 539, arts. III & VI. Specifically, Mr.
Sheakley fails to establish jurisdiction by neither showing
how Articles III and VI of the Treaty of Cession are money-
mandating sources nor indicating how he is within the
class of plaintiffs that could recover under them. See gen-
erally Appx. 1–3.
Accordingly, Mr. Sheakley fails to meet his jurisdic-
tional requirement for his other claims, so dismissal of Mr.
Sheakley’s Complaint remains proper.
IV. THE COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS CANNOT GIVE MR.
SHEAKLEY THE EQUITABLE RELIEF HE SEEKS.
In his Complaint, Mr. Sheakley requested the following
relief: “Waive the sovereign immunity for State of Alaska
for violation of expressed promise. Grant Mr. Sheakley a
preliminary injunction, and [g]rant Mr. Sheakley a re-
strai[ni]ng Order against the State of Alaska, for breach of
contract.” Appx. 3.
Indian claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1505, Mr. Sheakley did not
include it in his Complaint so he failed to establish how he
could be entitled to recover within the class of plaintiffs un-
der it, and the Court of Federal Claims could not even en-
tertain this argument. See generally Appx. 1–3.
Case: 23-1115 Document: 23 Page: 9 Filed: 08/10/2023
SHEAKLEY v. US 9
Mr. Sheakley insists that “[t]he trial judge only consid-
ered the relief and not the arguments, or the counts.” Ap-
pellant’s Informal Br. 2. The United States asserts that
the Court of Federal Claims does not have the authority to
grant the relief that Mr. Sheakley requests against Alaska
or its officials. Appellee’s Informal Br. 5 (collecting cases).
We agree with the United States. For example, “[t]he
Tucker Act does not provide independent jurisdiction over
such claims for equitable relief.” Brown v. United States,
105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (finding that the declar-
atory or injunctive relief sought by a plaintiff was “outside
the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims”); see also
Lawton, 621 F. App’x at 672 (acknowledging that the Court
of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over states or
their officials). Even if the Court of Federal Claims did con-
sider Mr. Sheakley’s requested relief when determining ju-
risdiction, it would provide none.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Sheakley’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the above reasons,
the decision of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.