Case: 13-5148 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 12/20/2013
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IAN OWEN SHARPE, GREGORY R. YOUNG, AND
MICHAEL TROY OLSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________
2013-5148
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
Claims in No. 1:13-cv-00319-ECH, Chief Judge Emily C.
Hewitt.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before MOORE, LINN and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Ian Owen Sharpe, Gregory R. Young, and Michael
Troy Olson appeal from the United States Court of Feder-
al Claims decision to dismiss their complaint for lack of
Case: 13-5148 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 12/20/2013
2 SHARPE v. US
jurisdiction. This court grants the government’s motion to
summarily affirm.
The appellants in this case are all federal prisoners.
On May 6, 2013, they filed a complaint on behalf of them-
selves and other prisoners asking the Court of Federal
Claims for, among other things, their immediate release
from incarceration. They asserted that the federal district
courts that had imprisoned them lacked authority to do
so.
Specifically, appellants alleged that
18 U.S.C. § 3231,
the law which gives federal district courts jurisdiction
over criminal cases, was never passed or signed in the
presence of a quorum or majority of both Houses of Con-
gress as required by the United States Constitution. 1 The
appellants also requested compensatory damages for
unlawful incarceration and imprisonment and “for willful,
arbitrary, and vindictive prosecutions of each of the
Plaintiffs.” On May 21, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims
dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
On June 27, 2013, appellants moved for reconsidera-
tion of that decision. On September 4, 2013, the Court of
Federal Claims affirmed its original holding. In addition,
the court denied appellants’ motion to transfer this case to
another court, and sanctioned appellants for abusing the
judicial process. This appeal followed.
1 This same argument has been addressed and reject-
ed by a number of courts. See, e.g., Wolford v. United
States, 362 Fed. App’x 231, 232 (3d Cir. 2010); United
States v. Carey,
2012 WL 928700, *1-2 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 19,
2012); United States v. Risquet,
426 F. Supp. 2d 310, 311-
12 (E.D. Pa. 2006); Salem v. United States,
2011 WL
2118610 (S.D. Miss. May 26, 2011); United States v.
Siegelman,
2007 WL 1284276 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 30, 2007).
Case: 13-5148 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 12/20/2013
SHARPE v. US 3
The Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction is defined by
the Tucker Act, which gives it the power to hear “any
claim against the United States founded . . . upon the
Constitution, or any Act of Congress.”
28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1). The Tucker Act does not itself provide the
substantive right of enforcement for money damages;
instead, a plaintiff must look elsewhere for the source of
substantive law on which to base a Tucker Act suit
against the United States. See United States v. Testan,
424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976).
In a thorough discussion of the appellants’ submis-
sions, the Court of Federal Claims went through the
various constitutional and statutory sources of law cited
by the appellants but found that none conferred upon
them a right to money damages based on their alleged
wrongful imprisonment or otherwise granted the Court of
Federal Claims authority to act on their complaint.
Appellants’ informal brief does not raise any cogent
argument as to why that determination was in error. 2
In their brief, appellants again request that their case
be transferred pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1631 to a federal
district court. This court reviews a decision by the Court
of Federal Claims to transfer a case pursuant to § 1631
for an abuse of discretion. See Rick’s Mushroom Serv.,
Inc. v. United States,
521 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
2008). While the Court of Federal Claims acknowledged
that it perhaps had the authority to transfer the case, it
2 To the extent that appellants were attempting to
seek review of the federal district court’s decisions to
incarcerate them, such matters are clearly outside of the
limited jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. See
Boise Cascade Corp. v. United States,
296 F.3d 1339,
1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“It is true that Article III forbids
the Court of Federal Claims, an Article I tribunal, from
reviewing the actions of an Article III court . . . .”).
Case: 13-5148 Document: 24 Page: 4 Filed: 12/20/2013
4 SHARPE v. US
found that it would not be in the interest of justice to do
so.
That was not an abuse of discretion. The Court of
Federal Claims cited, with ample support, the appellants’
long history of filing frivolous lawsuits attempting to
challenge their criminal convictions. Based on that prior
history and the frivolous nature of the current complaint,
it was reasonable for the Court of Federal Claims to
conclude that transfer of this case to a federal district
court would merely result in a further waste of judicial
resources. See generally Galloway Farms, Inc. v. United
States,
834 F.2d 998, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also Phil-
lips v. Seiter,
173 F.3d 609, 610-11 (7th Cir. 1999) (trans-
fer of a frivolous case is a waste of judicial resources).
Finally, in their numerous submissions to this court
appellants request various forms of relief, including
appointment of counsel, release from incarceration on
bond, and certification of a question for review by the
Supreme Court of the United States pursuant to
28
U.S.C. § 1254(2). While this court has considered these
submissions, this court is not convinced that such relief is
appropriate or available.
Because it is clear that the Court of Federal Claims’
decision was clearly correct, summary affirmance is
appropriate. See Joshua v. United States,
17 F.3d 378,
380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Summary affirmance of a case “is
appropriate, inter alia, when the position of one party is
so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial
question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The United States’ motion is granted. The judg-
ment of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.
Case: 13-5148 Document: 24 Page: 5 Filed: 12/20/2013
SHARPE v. US 5
(2) Appellants’ motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is moot.
(3) All other motions are denied.
(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
s26
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: December 20, 2013
