Hastings v. United States

Case: 22-2073 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 11/14/2022
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LESLIE R. HASTINGS, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-2073
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-00531-PEC, Judge Patricia E. Campbell-
Smith.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
The United States moves to summarily affirm the judg-
ment of United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing
Leslie R. Hastings, Jr.’s complaint. Mr. Hastings has filed
several motions for various relief, but he has not responded
to the government’s motion.
Case: 22-2073 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 11/14/2022
2 HASTINGS v. US
In 2020, Mr. Hastings, who is incarcerated in Texas
state prison, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
which was removed to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas and ultimately dismissed.
After the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Cir-
cuit dismissed his appeal, Mr. Hastings filed the present
action in the Court of Federal Claims, seeking damages
and his immediate release from prison, alleging that he
was “being wrongfully imprisoned” and that the Fifth Cir-
cuit’s mandate violated his constitutional rights. On July
12, 2022, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed any as-
serted claim for damages for an unjust conviction pursuant
to the court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1495 for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, dismissed
his remaining claims for lack of jurisdiction under the
Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, and certified under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the judgment would not
be taken in good faith. Mr. Hastings nevertheless filed this
appeal challenging that ruling.
We agree that summary disposition is appropriate here
because there is no “substantial question regarding the
outcome” of the appeal. Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d
378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Mr. Hastings’
informal brief appears to primarily take issue with the
Court of Federal Claims’ decision to not review decisions of
the district court and the Fifth Circuit in his prior habeas
case. But as the trial court noted, the Court of Federal
Claims does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of
federal district or appellate courts. Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v.
United States, 862 F.3d 1370, 1384–85 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United States, 782 F.3d 1345,
1352 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271
F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Allustiarte v. United
States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
The trial court also correctly concluded that § 1495 does
not apply here. That statute gives the Court of Federal
Claims “jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim for
Case: 22-2073 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 11/14/2022
HASTINGS v. US 3
damages by any person unjustly convicted of an offense
against the United States and imprisoned.” But 28 U.S.C.
§ 2513 states requirements for such a suit, making clear
that the Court of Federal Claims may not itself review the
conviction and imprisonment. The plaintiff must show
that “[h]is conviction has been reversed or set aside on the
ground that he is not guilty . . . or that he has been par-
doned.” § 2513(a)(1). “Proof of the requisite facts shall be
by a certificate of the court or pardon . . . and other evi-
dence thereof shall not be received.” § 2513(b). Mr. Has-
tings submitted neither a court-issued certificate that his
conviction has already been reversed or set aside nor proof
of a presidential pardon. The Court of Federal Claims
therefore properly dismissed his claims.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The United States’ motion for summary affirmance
is granted. The judgment of the United States Court of
Federal Claims is summarily affirmed.
(2) All other motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
November 14, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court