Joseph Parrott, Sr. v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JOSEPH PARROTT, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-2237
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-00147-MHS, Judge Matthew H. Solomson.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Joseph Parrott, Sr. has appealed from the final judg-
ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismiss-
ing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. He moves for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We summarily affirm.
Mr. Parrott brought this suit in the Court of Federal
Claims alleging that he was wrongly accused of criminal
conduct, had been harassed and discriminated against by
Case: 22-2237 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 06/08/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

PARROTT v. US 2
state employees, had been wrongfully deprived of access to
copies of his entire state criminal record, and that the fed-
eral government failed to follow up with his complaints
about these actions. The Court of Federal Claims sua
sponte dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Summary affirmance is appropriate here because “no
substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal
exists,” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir.
1994). The Court of Federal Claims is a federal tribunal of
limited jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1491. It may only review
claims against the United States based on a source of sub-
stantive law that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating
compensation by the Federal Government.” United States
v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) (citations omit-
ted). Here, the Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct
that it did not have jurisdiction to review any of the claims
raised in Mr. Parrott’s complaint because those claims
were not against the United States or were claims against
the United States that were clearly outside the limited
grant of jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims.
Mr. Parrott’s brief primarily raises arguments concern-
ing the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., Br. at 4–
5, but it is well settled that the Court of Federal Claims
lacks jurisdiction over such claims, which may only be
brought in district court, 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a) (“Any action
under section 3730 [for civil actions under the False Claims
Act] may be brought in any judicial district in which the
defendant . . . can be found, resides, [or] transacts business”
(emphasis added)); LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025,
1031 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that such “suits may only be
heard in the district courts”). He also argues that the
United States is liable for a breach of Article I, Section 9,
Clause 8 of the Constitution (“Titles of Nobility and For-
eign Emoluments”), and the Moroccan-American Treaty of
Peace and Friendship, Br. at 4, but Mr. Parrott has pro-
vided no cognizable basis to fairly interpret either as man-
dating compensation by the federal government.
Case: 22-2237 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 06/08/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

PARROTT v. US 3
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) Mr. Parrott’s opening brief, ECF No. 8, is accepted
for filing.
(2) The judgment of the United States Court of Federal
Claims is affirmed.
(3) All pending motions are denied as moot.
(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.
June 8, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
Jarrett B. Perlow
Acting Clerk of Court
Case: 22-2237 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 06/08/2023

-- 3 of 3 --