Luan P. Khuc v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LUAN P. KHUC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1362
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-02036-CNL, Judge Carolyn N. Lerner.
______________________
Decided: June 26, 2024
______________________
L UAN P. K HUC, San Jose, CA, pro se.
K ARA WESTERCAMP , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY , F RANKLIN E.
WHITE, J R.
______________________
Before P ROST , SCHALL , and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1362 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 06/26/2024

-- 1 of 4 --

KHUC v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
D ECISION
Luan P. Khuc appeals the Order and Final Judgment
of the United States Court of Federal Claims that, pursu-
ant to RCFC 12(h)(3), dismissed his complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. Khuc v. United States, No.
23-2036-CNL (Fed. Cl. Nov. 29, 2023), ECF Nos. 5, 6; Ap-
pellant’s Br. 21–22.1 We affirm.
D ISCUSSION
I
On November 27, 2023, Mr. Khuc filed a pro se com-
plaint in the Court of Federal Claims. In his complaint, he
alleged that the United States had issued him an “Award
Certificate” in the amount of $10,000,000 that he wanted
to redeem. Khuc v. United States, No. 23-2036-CNL (Fed.
Cl. Nov. 27, 2023), ECF No. 1; Appellant’s Br. 3, 23–25.
Two days later, the court sua sponte issued its Order dis-
missing Mr. Khuc’s complaint for lack of subject-matter ju-
risdiction. Citing the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1),
and Jan’s Helicopter Services, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration, 525 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the
court explained, “[w]hile Mr. Khuc names the United
States as a defendant, he does not invoke any source of law
that provides a jurisdictional basis in this Court or chal-
lenge any specific conduct by the federal government.” Ap-
pellant’s Br. 21. Following the entry of judgment, Mr. Khuc
timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
1 We use the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF
system for Mr. Khuc’s informal brief and the attachments
thereto.
Case: 24-1362 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 06/26/2024

-- 2 of 4 --

KHUC v. US 3
II
The Court of Federal Claims derives its jurisdiction
(which is its power to hear a case) from the Tucker Act. The
Tucker Act provides as follows:
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 Congress or any regulation of an
executive department, or upon any express
or implied contract with the United States,
or for liquidated or unliquidated damages
in cases not sounding in tort.
28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
In Jan’s Helicopter, we stated that “because the Tucker
Act itself does not create a substantive cause of action, ‘in
order to come within the jurisdictional reach . . . of the
Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a separate source of
substantive law that creates the right to money damages.’”
525 F.3d at 1306 (quoting Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d
1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc in relevant part)).
Moreover, a claimant such as Mr. Khuc must demonstrate
that the source of substantive law he relies upon “can fairly
be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal
Government for the damages sustained.” United States v.
Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 218 (1983). Although in the Court
of Federal Claims Mr. Khuc pointed to an “Award Certifi-
cate,” he failed to identify in his complaint any source of
law that could fairly be interpreted as mandating that the
United States compensate him for holding such a
Case: 24-1362 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 06/26/2024

-- 3 of 4 --

KHUC v. US 4
document.2 For this reason, Mr. Khuc failed to show that
the Court of Federal Claims was authorized to hear his
case.
III
For the foregoing reasons, the Order and Final Judg-
ment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing Mr. Khuc’s
complaint are affirmed.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
2 As the government points out, it appears that Mr.
Khuc’s “Award Certificate” was provided to him as part of
an elaborate online scam. See Appellee’s Br. 4–5.
Case: 24-1362 Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 06/26/2024

-- 4 of 4 --