Siler v. United States

NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition
is not citable as precedent. It is a public record.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
05-5170
STANLEY R. SILER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________________
DECIDED: February 15, 2006
____________________________
Before MAYER, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION
Stanley R. Siler appeals from the September 1, 2005 order of the United States
Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and failure to state a claim. Siler v. United States, No. 05-926C, slip op. (Fed. Cl. Sept.
1, 2005). We affirm.
DISCUSSION
On August 24, 2005, Mr. Siler filed a pro se complaint in the Court of Federal
Claims against the United States, generally alleging copyright infringement and breach
of contract. The jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims over copyright infringement
extends only to claims against the United States. See 28 USC § 1498(b) (2000). Mr.
Siler’s complaint alleged:
The Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of
Marion allows defendants in the case below to continue to
infringe copyright property . . . [and] deliberately dismisses
Copyright Suit . . . STANLEY R. SILVER vs. Dennis
Vavrosky, et al. The Circuit Court . . . refuses to enforce
copyright infringement actions . . . . The Circuit Court . . . is
unjust and unfair.
Because Mr. Siler’s complaint did not allege that the United States infringed a copyright
owned by him, the Court of Federal Claims was required to dismiss the complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
With respect to the contract claim, Mr. Siler’s complaint alleged that he “has a
written agreement with the United States Court of Federal Claim[s].” However, we
understand Mr. Siler to have been claiming that he has a contract with the United
States. In support of his claim, Mr. Siler submitted a notarized document prepared by
him and signed only by him, although it declares that it binds the United States. Based
on a submitted Certificate of Recordation, the document appears to have been
registered in the Copyright Office. Because the document is not a contract or
agreement at all, given that there is no indication of acceptance, we conclude that the
Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed Mr. Siler’s contract action for failure to state
05-5170 2
a claim. Accordingly, the decision by the Court of Federal claims to dismiss Mr. Siler’s
complaint is affirmed.
05-5170 3