Case: 23-1872 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 12/20/2023
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TERESA MILLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1872
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-00525-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before DYK, BRYSON, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Teresa Miller moves for leave to proceed in forma pau-
peris (“IFP”), ECF Nos. 17 and 18. She also moves “for a
stay or injunction in appeal,” ECF No. 21, and to allow ar-
gument, ECF Nos. 7, 8, and 13. After consideration of the
complaint, the judgment of the United States Court of
Case: 23-1872 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 12/20/2023
2 MILLER v. US
Federal Claims, Ms. Miller’s briefs, and the motions pa-
pers, we deny the motions and dismiss the appeal.
Ms. Miller was convicted in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of West Virginia of one
count of unlawfully possessing a firearm that was uncov-
ered by dog sniff during a traffic stop. See United States v.
Miller,
54 F.4th 219, 223 (4th Cir. 2022). On appeal, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit va-
cated her conviction and sentence, holding that the officer
who conducted the traffic stop lacked a reasonable, articu-
lable factual basis to extend the traffic stop to conduct the
dog sniff. See
id. The case was ultimately dismissed.
In April 2023, Ms. Miller filed this suit at the Court of
Federal Claims seeking $276,715.75 in damages to com-
pensate for her conviction and imprisonment, including for
the loss of employment and business revenue and for inju-
ries related to her conviction and the conditions of her in-
carceration. The Court of Federal Claims granted Ms.
Miller’s motion for leave to proceed IFP, dismissed the com-
plaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, certified under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal “would not be taken
in good faith because, as alleged, [Ms. Miller]’s claims are
outside the jurisdiction of this Court and incurable,” and
directed the Clerk of that court to reject any future submis-
sions in the case unless they comply with the court’s rules.
ECF No. 19 at Appx4. This appeal followed.
“[T]he court shall dismiss . . . if the court determines
that . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous.”
28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). This appeal is frivolous. The Court of
Federal Claims was clearly correct to dismiss Ms. Miller’s
claim for unjust conviction under
28 U.S.C. § 1495 because
she failed to plausibly allege that “her conviction has been
reversed or set aside on the ground that [s]he is not guilty
of the offense of which [s]he was convicted, or on new trial
or rehearing [s]he was found not guilty of such offense, as
appears from the record or certificate of the court setting
Case: 23-1872 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 12/20/2023
MILLER v. US 3
aside or reversing such conviction, or that [s]he has been
pardoned,”
28 U.S.C. § 2513(a)(1). Moreover, she has not
received a certificate required under § 2513(b). * It was also
clearly correct that Ms. Miller’s claims of emotional dis-
tress and other associated harms from when she was incar-
cerated “sound[] in tort” and thus outside the limited
jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. See
28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1); U.S. Marine, Inc. v. United States,
722 F.3d
1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) All pending motions are denied.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
December 20, 2023
Date
* We must reject Ms. Miller’s request for this court
to direct a judge to issue her a certificate of innocence. See
ECF No. 4 at 2–3. She points to no authority, nor are we
aware of any, providing this court with such ability.
