Myles v. United States

Case: 21-1758 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 01/13/2022
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RONALD R. MYLES, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2021-1758
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:20-cv-00875-MMS, Senior Judge Margaret M.
Sweeney.
______________________
Decided: January 13, 2022
______________________
RONALD R. MYLES, JR., Glenville, WV, pro se.
CATHARINE PARNELL, Civil Division, Commercial Liti-
gation Branch, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented
by REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON,
MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.
______________________
Case: 21-1758 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 01/13/2022
2 MYLES v. US
PER CURIAM.
Ronald R. Myles, Jr. appeals the final decision of the
United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his com-
plaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. For the below reasons,
we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2016, Mr. Myles was arrested for and found guilty of
two bank robberies. Mr. Myles is currently serving his sen-
tence. When the authorities arrested Mr. Myles, they con-
fiscated more than $137,000 in cash and other personal
property. As part of his original criminal proceedings in
federal district court, Mr. Myles moved for the return of his
confiscated cash and personal property. That request was
rejected by the district court and the Sixth Circuit.
Four years later, on July 13, 2020, Mr. Myles filed a
complaint pro se at the Court of Federal Claims. The com-
plaint sought the return of his confiscated cash and an
award for various alleged damages, including “music & ca-
reer damages,” “pain and suffering,” “punitive damages,”
and “Pro Se Legal Fees,” together totaling over $450 mil-
lion. In addition to the damages sought, the complaint al-
leged that the district court engaged in “illegal Appellate
Review” of a state court’s “warrant Ruling” and that Mr.
Myles’s conviction was “invalid” and the result of a “mali-
cious prosecution.” Appx. D 1 at 2. The Government moved
to dismiss Mr. Myles’s complaint.
The Court of Federal Claims agreed with the Govern-
ment and dismissed the entirety of Mr. Myles’s complaint.
1 Appx. D refers to the Court of Federal Claims deci-
sion on appeal, attached to Appellant’s brief as Appen-
dix D. We use the pagination provided in the header of
Appendix D.
Case: 21-1758 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 01/13/2022
MYLES v. US 3
The court interpreted Mr. Myles’s complaint as alleging
three claims: (1) a collateral attack on his criminal convic-
tion, i.e., an attempt to overturn the criminal judgment
against him; (2) a claim under the Takings Clause related
to the cash seized during his arrest; and (3) a breach of con-
tract claim. Appx. D at 4–7.
Regarding the first claim, the trial court explained that
it does not have jurisdiction to review a criminal conviction
by a district court. Id. at 4–6. Rather, as the court ex-
plained, it only has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to re-
view a “money-mandating constitutional provision, statute
or regulation . . . , or an express or implied contract with
the United States.” Id. at 3 (citing Loveladies Harbor, Inc.
v. United States, 27 F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en
banc)). The court acknowledged Mr. Myles had identified
several sources of law he alleged supported his claims, in-
cluding the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Fourth,
Eighth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court
explained that none of these are money-mandating provi-
sions supporting a claim against the United States under
the Tucker Act, and thus the court had no jurisdiction to
hear these claims. Id. at 4–6. The court further found that
to the extent Mr. Myles’s malicious prosecution claim could
be considered separately from his collateral attack on his
conviction, that claim sounded in tort, a type of claim the
Tucker Act expressly excludes from the court’s jurisdiction.
Id. at 5 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)). The court thus dis-
missed this first claim for lack of subject matter jurisdic-
tion. Id. at 6.
Regarding the takings claim, the court cited our prior
case holding that a seizure of personal property during a
criminal investigation is not a taking under the Fifth
Amendment. Id. at 6 (citing Acadia Tech., Inc. v. United
States, 458 F.3d 1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). And regard-
ing the breach of contract claim, the court found that Mr.
Myles had not identified a valid contract between himself
and the United States. Id. at 6–7. The court thus
Case: 21-1758 Document: 24 Page: 4 Filed: 01/13/2022
4 MYLES v. US
dismissed these claims for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Id. at 7.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the entirety of Mr.
Myles’s complaint, either for lack of jurisdiction over the
claim or failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. 2
Mr. Myles appeals. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Mr. Myles again argues that the search
warrant under which his money was confiscated was inva-
lid, as well as his conviction; that the Government has com-
mitted an unlawful taking; and that the Government has
breached a “5th Amendment Takings Clause contract.”
Appellant’s Br. 8.
We start with Mr. Myles’s collateral attack on his con-
viction, which the Court of Federal Claims dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction. We review de novo a Court of Federal
Claims decision to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Creative
2 The court also certified that, under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3), an appeal could not be taken in good faith be-
cause the claims “are clearly beyond the subject matter ju-
risdiction of this court or clearly fail as a matter of law.”
Id. at 8. When a district court has so certified, a litigant
may still file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pau-
peris with the appellate court. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). In
evaluating these requests, however, the appellate court
gives “great weight” to the district court’s decision that an
appeal should not be taken. See, e.g., Johnson v. United
States, 352 U.S. 565, 566 (1957). Upon review, we denied
Mr. Myles’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Myles
v. United States, No. 21-1758, ECF No. 7 (Fed. Cir. July 30,
2021).
Case: 21-1758 Document: 24 Page: 5 Filed: 01/13/2022
MYLES v. US 5
Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. United States, 989 F.3d 955, 961 (Fed.
Cir. 2021). We construe pro se filings like Mr. Myles’s lib-
erally, but that does not alleviate Mr. Myles’s burden to es-
tablish jurisdiction. Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795,
799 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Minehan v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl.
249, 253 (2007).
The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited juris-
diction; by statute, it may only resolve certain monetary
claims against the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1491. Plain-
tiffs must identify a contract or a source of substantive law
(such as a constitutional provision, federal statute, or
agency regulation) that provides a right to money damages.
§ 1491(a)(1); see Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091,
1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The source of substantive law
must be “money-mandating,” i.e., it must mandate compen-
sation by the government. Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d
1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
The Court of Federal Claims properly determined that
it lacks jurisdiction to address Mr. Myles’s claims attacking
his conviction and sentencing. The Court of Federal
Claims does not have jurisdiction to decide criminal claims.
Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
It similarly cannot review the judgments of federal district
courts. Id. at 380. We therefore affirm the trial court’s
determination that it lacks jurisdiction to review Mr.
Myles’s collateral attack on his conviction.
To the extent Mr. Myles pleaded a malicious prosecu-
tion claim, that is a tort claim. See, e.g., Hernandez v.
United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 195, 203–04 (2010) (describing a
malicious prosecution claim as a tort claim). Such claims
are expressly excluded from the Court of Federal Claims’
jurisdiction. § 1491(a)(1) (excluding claims “sounding in
tort” from Tucker Act jurisdiction); Hernandez, 96 Fed. Cl.
at 203–04 (2010) (dismissing a malicious prosecution claim
for lack of jurisdiction). We therefore agree with the trial
court that it lacks jurisdiction to resolve this claim.
Case: 21-1758 Document: 24 Page: 6 Filed: 01/13/2022
6 MYLES v. US
We turn next to the trial court’s dismissal of
Mr. Myles’s takings and breach of contract claims for fail-
ure to state a claim. These are questions of law we review
de novo. Creative Mgmt. Servs, 989 F.3d at 961. We agree
with the trial court that these claims were properly dis-
missed. First, as the trial court explained, “[w]hen prop-
erty has been seized pursuant to the criminal laws . . . ,
such deprivations are not ‘takings’ for which the owner is
entitled to compensation.” Appx. D at 6 (quoting Acadia
Tech., Inc. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir.
2006)). Second, Mr. Myles’s unexplained references in his
appeal brief to a “5th Amendment Takings Clause con-
tract” and a “due process contract” do not plausibly allege
the existence of a contract between the parties, a prerequi-
site for Mr. Myles to be entitled to breach of contract dam-
ages. See Appellant’s Br. 10–11; see, e.g., Bell/Heery v.
United States, 739 F.3d 1324, 1326, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(affirming dismissal where the elements of a breach of con-
tract claim were not plausibly alleged). We therefore af-
firm the court’s dismissal of these claims for failure to state
a claim.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we affirm the decision of the Court
of Federal Claims.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.