Jeffrey R. Berry v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

JEFFREY R. BERRY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
V.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.

2012-5022

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
Claims in case no. 11-CV-618, Judge Thomas C. Wheeler.

## ON MOTION

Before BRYSON, MAYER, LINN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.

## ORDER

The United States moves to summarily affirm the
judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims
dismissing Jeffrey R. Berry's complaint. Berry opposes.

Berry's complaint appears to allege that his bank, the
Treasury Department, and federal judges have concealed
and suppressed evidence establishing the theft of hun-

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="BERRY v. US" -->

dreds of millions of dollars from Berry's bank account and
further establishing Berry is innocent of the criminal
fraud charges that led in his prison sentence. Berry's
complaint further appears to assert that jurisdiction is
proper in the Court of Federal Claims because his case
involved government employees whose alleged treasonous
acts were in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2381.

The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint.
The court noted that Berry had proceeded in forma pau-
peris, and where a complaint filed in forma pauperis is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defen-
dant who is immune from such relief, the court must
dismiss the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Berry appeals from that ruling. The United States
urges this court to summarily affirm that decision. Sum-
mary 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." Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d
378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

The court agrees that summary affirmance is appro-
priate here. Berry appears to assert that the Court of
Federal Claims had jurisdiction based on 18 U.S.C. §
2381, which provides "[w]hoever, owing allegiance to the
United States, levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United
States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer
death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and
fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall
be incapable of holding any office under the United
States."

The language of that statute clearly lacks any provi-
sion that would require the payment of money damages to

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="BERRY v. US" -->

Berry. See Murray v. United States, 817 F.2d 1580, 1582-
83 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Moreover, the criminal matters and
fraud allegations generally discussed in Berry's complaint
are not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal
Claims. See Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623
(Fed. Cir. 1997); Joshua, 17 F.3d at 379. In addition, as
the trial court pointed out, Berry's complaint failed to
adequately state who he was attempting to sue and what
laws the alleged defendants had violated. Because
Berry's complaint clearly fails to state a claim on which
the Court of Federal Claims can grant relief and is frivo-
lous, the Court of Federal Claims was correct in dismiss-
ing Berry's complaint.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The judgment of the Court
of Federal Claims is summarily affirmed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(3) All pending motions are moot.

FOR THE COURT

APR 1 1 2012

Date

/s/ Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk

cc: Jeffrey R. Berry
Joshua E. Kurland, Esq.
$24

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
APR 1 1 2012

JAN HORBALY
CLERK