“Accordingly, this court holds that compliance with § 2513, including submission of a certificate of innocence from the federal district court, is a prerequisite to the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.”
How later courts described this case
- “Accordingly, this court holds that compliance with § 2513, including submission of a certificate of innocence from the federal district court, is a prerequisite to the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 25-737
Filed: August 25, 2025
)
ANTONIO LETRELL BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Defendant. )
)
OPINION AND ORDER
On April 28, 2025, plaintiff, Antonio Letrell Brown, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint
with this Court, appearing to generally allege that he was wrongfully convicted in the case of
United States v. Davis, No. 6:93-cr-148 in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida for a narcotics-related conspiracy in Florida. See Compl. at 2–4, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff
also alleges that the government acted in bad faith by failing to disclose relevant documents
when he was convicted. Id. at 16.
On June 25, 2025, the Court issued an order to show cause directing plaintiff to “identify
which source or sources of law he is invoking and explain why this Court has jurisdiction over
this case.” See Order at 1, ECF No. 13. The June 25 order also stayed defendant’s answer
pending the Court’s review of plaintiff’s response. Id. On July 29, 2025, plaintiff responded to
the Court’s June 25 order and explained that he seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1495. See ECF
No. 18 at 1.
This Court’s authority to hear cases is primarily grounded in the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §
1491, which grants this Court with subject-matter jurisdiction over claims brought against the
United States that are grounded on a money-mandating source of law and do not sound in tort.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Among the money-mandating claims that the Court is empowered
to hear are claims “to render judgment upon any claim for damages by any person unjustly
convicted of an offense against the United States and imprisoned.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1495. In
order to prevail on a claim under § 1495, the plaintiff must allege and prove that:
(1) His conviction has been reversed or set aside on the ground that he is not
guilty of the offense of which he was convicted, or on new trial or rehearing
he was found not guilty of such offense, as appears from the record or
certificate of the court setting aside or reversing such conviction, or that he
has been pardoned upon the stated ground of innocence and unjust
conviction and
(2) He did not commit any of the acts charged or his acts, deeds, or omissions
in connection with such charge constituted no offense against the United
States, or any State, Territory or the District of Columbia, and he did not by
misconduct or neglect cause or bring about his own prosecution.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2513. Section 2513 also establishes the means by which a plaintiff must prove
his claim for relief under § 1495: “Proof of the requisite facts shall be by a certificate of the court
or pardon wherein such facts are alleged to appear, and other evidence thereof shall not be
received.” See § 2513(b). The plaintiff must obtain “the certificate of innocence from the federal
district court” where he was convicted. Wood v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 569, 576 (2009).
Under binding precedent, this requirement “is a prerequisite to the jurisdiction of the Court of
Federal Claims.” Id. at 577 (citing, inter alia, Moore v. United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 819, 820
(1982)).
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to clear the jurisdictional hurdle because he has not submitted a
certificate of innocence from the federal district court where he was convicted—i.e., the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Therefore, this Court must dismiss the
complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See R. Ct. Fed. Cl. 12(h)(3); see also Wood v.
United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 569, 577 (2009) (“Accordingly, this court holds that compliance with
§ 2513, including submission of a certificate of innocence from the federal district court, is a
prerequisite to the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.”).
To be sure, Mr. Brown did file motions for a certificate of innocence in the district court,
but they were summarily stricken by that court. See ECF Nos. 987, 989, 991, 994, 997, United
States v. Davis, No. 6:93-cr-148. To clear up any confusion, this Court clarifies that only the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida can consider his request for a
certificate of innocence. If plaintiff chooses to file another motion for a certificate of innocence
in the federal district court, he is advised to attach a copy of this Order. To be clear, this Court
does not express any position on whether plaintiff’s claim of innocence has any merit. That
question is for the federal district court.
For the reasons provided above, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s outstanding motions, ECF Nos. 7 and 8, are DENIED;
2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3);
3. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly; and
4. The Clerk is further directed to transmit a copy of this Order to the clerk of the court for
the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and request that court
to bring this Order to the attention of the presiding judge in Case No. 6:93-cr-148.
-2-
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Loren A. Smith
Loren A. Smith,
Senior Judge
-3-