Harry Edwin Miles v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
HARRY EDWIN MILES,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1622
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-01932-EMR, Judge Eleni M. Roumel.
______________________
Decided: November 6, 2025
______________________
H ARRY EDWIN M ILES, Corona, CA, pro se.
BRENDAN D AVID JORDAN, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., PATRICIA M.
M C CARTHY, YAAKOV ROTH .
______________________
Before LOURIE , S TOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 25-1622 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 11/06/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

MILES v. US 2
PER CURIAM.
Harry Edwin Miles filed this action in the Court of Fed-
eral Claims “against the United States and forty-six fed-
eral judges and prosecutors.” SAppx82.1 The Court of
Federal Claims dismissed Miles’ complaint for lack of sub-
ject matter jurisdiction. Miles appeals. We have jurisdic-
tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). We affirm.
“Whether the Claims Court properly dismissed a com-
plaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . . . [is a] ques-
tion[] of law that we review de novo.” Walby v. United
States, 957 F.3d 1295, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “We reverse
the Claims Court’s legal conclusion only if it is incorrect as
a matter of law.” Id.
In his suit, Miles accuses the United States, various
lawyers, and multiple federal judges of “exercising a cabal”
against him. SAppx2; see also SAppx84. His dissatisfac-
tion with the defendants appears to stem from his 2005 ar-
rest and conviction for possession of cocaine, and the defeat
of his subsequent collateral attacks on those criminal pro-
ceedings. SAppx4, SAppx12-30, SAppx84. Miles seeks in
his complaint damages up to $19 billion. SAppx8,
SAppx48.
“The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited juris-
diction.” Marcum LLP v. United States, 753 F.3d 1380,
1382 (Fed. Cir. 2014). One limit is that it can only exercise
jurisdiction over claims against the United States, not fed-
eral officials. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (“The United
States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to
render judgment upon any claim against the United States
founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Con-
gress or any regulation of an executive department, or
upon any express or implied contract with the United
1 “SAppx” refers to the Supplemental Appendix filed
with the government’s Informal Brief. ECF No. 12.
Case: 25-1622 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 11/06/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

MILES v. US 3
States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases
not sounding in tort.”); United States v. Sherwood,
312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (“[I]f the relief sought is against
others than the United States the suit as to them must be
ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court.”). Thus, the
Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction over Miles’
claims against the individual defendants named and
properly dismissed those claims. SAppx82-95.
As to the claims against the United States, the Court
of Federal Claims also correctly determined that it lacked
jurisdiction. As the court explained, at the time Miles filed
his complaint in the Court of Federal Claims, he had al-
ready filed a pending case in district court, similarly chal-
lenging his arrest and conviction, which deprived the Court
of Federal Claims of jurisdiction. SAppx91-92; see also 28
U.S.C. § 1500 (“The United States Court of Federal Claims
shall not have jurisdiction of any claim for or in respect to
which the plaintiff . . . has pending in any other court any
suit or process against the United States . . . .”).
Finally, as the Court of Federal Claims also correctly
concluded, Miles fails to invoke a money-mandating source
of law, which additionally placed his claims against the
United States outside the subject matter jurisdiction of
that court. SAppx93-95; see also Fisher v. United States,
402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that jurisdic-
tion in Court of Federal Claims requires identification of “a
separate source of substantive law that creates the right to
money damages”).
Before us, Miles attempts to overcome these jurisdic-
tional deficiencies by contending that the Court of Federal
Claims “ignored the fact that [he] . . . invoked a Court of
Equity regarding this trust action and applied Statutory
Law which has no force or effect on [him] a living breathing
man in place of Equity.” Appellant Informal Brief at 2.
However, the Court of Federal Claims has no authority to
invoke equity to expand the scope of its jurisdiction, which
Case: 25-1622 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 11/06/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

MILES v. US 4
is established by statute. See Brown v. United States, 105
F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The Tucker Act does not
provide independent jurisdiction over such claims for equi-
table relief.”). Miles additionally suggests he granted ju-
risdiction to the court “to act as his trustee.” See SAppx3,
SAppx86. The Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction, how-
ever, is set by statute and not by the litigants appearing
before it. See Brown, 105 F.3d at 623.
We have considered Miles’ remaining arguments and
find they lack merit. Accordingly, for the reasons stated,
we affirm the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dis-
missing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdic-
tion.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
Each party to bear its own costs.
Case: 25-1622 Document: 17 Page: 4 Filed: 11/06/2025

-- 4 of 4 --