Scott v. United States

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 22-1603C

(Filed: May 15, 2023)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

***************************************

TOMMY WESLEY SCOTT, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

***************************************

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Tommy Wesley Scott, proceeding pro se, alleges that he is a member

of the “Muskogee (Creek) Nation” and that he is in the criminal custody of the State

of Oklahoma. Compl. at 1–2 (ECF 1). He claims that Oklahoma lacked authority to

prosecute him, citing primarily the Major Crimes Act (“MCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1153, and

various treaties between the United States and Indian tribes. Id. The government’s

motion to dismiss is fully briefed.1 Because Mr. Scott seeks relief this Court may not

grant, based on sources of law that do not confer rights he can assert here, the Court

does not have jurisdiction. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

This Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction — its authority to pass judgment on

the cases before it — is limited to specific types of claims against the federal

government, most commonly claims for money as provided by the Tucker Act. See,

e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); see also Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed.

Cir. 1997) (“The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction.”). Perhaps

confusingly for pro se litigants, it is not a forum for “federal claims” generally. Claims

outside the Court’s jurisdiction must be dismissed. RCFC 12(h)(3).2

1 See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (ECF 8); Pl.’s Resp. & Mot. for Leave to Amend Compl. (ECF 9); Def.’s

Reply & Resp. to Mot. for Leave to Amend Compl. (ECF 10); Pl.’s Surreply (ECF 14). Plaintiff’s motion

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 2) is GRANTED.

2 “In determining jurisdiction, a court must accept as true all undisputed facts asserted in the

plaintiff’s complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Trusted Integration,

Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795,

797 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). “Although a pro se plaintiff’s complaint is held to a less stringent standard than

those prepared by counsel, … pro se litigants are not excused from meeting jurisdictional

The Complaint is, in essence, a collateral attack on Mr. Scott’s state-court

conviction. See Compl. at 1. Although Mr. Scott also requests monetary relief, id. at

4, the compensation he seeks is premised on the conviction’s invalidity or, put another

way, the United States’ alleged breach of a legal obligation to prevent improper

application of state law. Id. at 1, 4. State prisoners may challenge their convictions

on direct or collateral review in state court, and may seek writs of habeas corpus in

federal district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. But this Court cannot grant habeas relief.

Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (explaining that the

Court of Federal Claims was not one of the courts authorized by statute to grant

habeas relief); see also Rolle v. United States, 752 F. App’x 1005, 1006–07 (Fed. Cir.

2018) (similar). Relatedly, this Court also may not “review any of the judgments of

the [Oklahoma] state and federal courts with respect to [Mr. Scott’s] criminal case[.]”

Jones v. United States, 440 F. App’x 916, 918 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Joshua v.

United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[T]he Court of Federal Claims does

not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of district courts or the clerks of district

courts relating to proceedings before those courts.”).

Even if Mr. Scott’s claims were primarily for money, none of the sources of law

he mentions create jurisdiction in this Court. Claims in this Court generally must be

based on a “money-mandating” law, i.e., a law that “can fairly be interpreted as

mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained[.]”

Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. F.A.A., 525 F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting

United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 217 (1983)). This Court “has no jurisdiction

over criminal matters,” see Jones, 440 F. App’x at 918, or over claims sounding in tort,

see 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).

The laws Mr. Scott relies upon do not create rights that he can enforce in this

Court. The MCA and the definitions codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1301 do not appear to be

money-mandating. The MCA is a criminal statute that does not create any rights in

this Court. Cf. Kenyon v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 767, 774 (2016) (dismissing Major

Crimes Act claims as based on criminal law), aff’d, 683 F. App’x 945 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

The United States Department of the Interior’s guidance for administration of Indian

trust and treaty rights does not seem to require compensation, and certainly not for

state imprisonment. Pl.’s Resp. at 3. This Court has jurisdiction over monetary claims

of unjustly convicted federal prisoners, see 28 U.S.C. § 1495, 2513, but it has no such

authority as to state prisoners like Mr. Scott.

requirements.” Spengler v. United States, 688 F. App’x 917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations omitted)

(citing Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380

(Fed. Cir. 1987)).

-2-

Nor can any of the treaty language Mr. Scott cites fairly be interpreted as

mandating payment of money. See Compl. at 2 (quoting Treaty with the Creeks, art.

14, 1832, 7 Stat. 366; Treaty of Washington, art. 10, 1866, 14 Stat. 785); United States

v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 289–91 (2009). At most, Mr. Scott claims that because

treaties between the United States and Indian tribes are analogous to contracts, they

presumptively carry a damages remedy. See Pl.’s Resp. at 2. But that only goes to

show that the inference from treaties to contractual damages is imperfect: “[A] treaty

with an Indian tribe is a contract,” Tsosie v. United States, 825 F.2d 393, 397 (Fed.

Cir. 1987), but not all such treaties are money-mandating. See, e.g., Jarvis v. United

States, No. 22-1006, 2022 WL 1009728, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 2022); Greene v. United

States, No. 22-1064, 2023 WL 3072565, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 25, 2023); Moore v. United

States, 163 Fed. Cl. 591, 595 (2022).

In short, even if Mr. Scott is right that his conviction was invalid and that he

has no avenue for relief in any other court, see Compl. at 3; McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140

S. Ct. 2452 (2020), this Court cannot help him.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Mr.

Scott’s complaint is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction. See

Aerolineas Argentinas v. United States, 77 F.3d 1564, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[I]n the

absence of subject matter jurisdiction there can be no preclusive findings or

conclusions on the merits, and dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is without prejudice.”).

Because it does not appear that factual or legal elaboration could cure the Complaint’s

jurisdictional defects, Mr. Scott’s requests for leave to amend and for appointment of

counsel are DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Stephen S. Schwartz

STEPHEN S. SCHWARTZ

Judge

-3-