Case: 22-2073 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 11/14/2022
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`LESLIE R. HASTINGS, JR.,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2022-2073
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
`in No. 1:22-cv-00531-PEC, Judge Patricia E. Campbell-
`Smith.
`
`______________________
`
`ON MOTION
`______________________
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`O R D E R
`The United States moves to summarily affirm the judg-
`
`ment of United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing
`Leslie R. Hastings, Jr.’s complaint. Mr. Hastings has filed
`several motions for various relief, but he has not responded
`to the government’s motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2073 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 11/14/2022
`
`2
`
`
`
`HASTINGS v. US
`
`In 2020, Mr. Hastings, who is incarcerated in Texas
`
`state prison, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
`which was removed to the United States District Court for
`the Northern District of Texas and ultimately dismissed.
`After the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Cir-
`cuit dismissed his appeal, Mr. Hastings filed the present
`action in the Court of Federal Claims, seeking damages
`and his immediate release from prison, alleging that he
`was “being wrongfully imprisoned” and that the Fifth Cir-
`cuit’s mandate violated his constitutional rights. On July
`12, 2022, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed any as-
`serted claim for damages for an unjust conviction pursuant
`to the court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1495 for failure
`to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, dismissed
`his remaining claims for lack of jurisdiction under the
`Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, and certified under 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the judgment would not
`be taken in good faith. Mr. Hastings nevertheless filed this
`appeal challenging that ruling.
` We agree that summary disposition is appropriate here
`because there is no “substantial question regarding the
`outcome” of the appeal. Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d
`378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Mr. Hastings’
`informal brief appears to primarily take issue with the
`Court of Federal Claims’ decision to not review decisions of
`the district court and the Fifth Circuit in his prior habeas
`case. But as the trial court noted, the Court of Federal
`Claims does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of
`federal district or appellate courts. Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v.
`United States, 862 F.3d 1370, 1384–85 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
`Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United States, 782 F.3d 1345,
`1352 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271
`F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Allustiarte v. United
`States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`The trial court also correctly concluded that § 1495 does
`not apply here. That statute gives the Court of Federal
`Claims “jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim for
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2073 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 11/14/2022
`
`HASTINGS v. US
`
` 3
`
`damages by any person unjustly convicted of an offense
`against the United States and imprisoned.” But 28 U.S.C.
`§ 2513 states requirements for such a suit, making clear
`that the Court of Federal Claims may not itself review the
`conviction and imprisonment. The plaintiff must show
`that “[h]is conviction has been reversed or set aside on the
`ground that he is not guilty . . . or that he has been par-
`doned.” § 2513(a)(1). “Proof of the requisite facts shall be
`by a certificate of the court or pardon . . . and other evi-
`dence thereof shall not be received.” § 2513(b). Mr. Has-
`tings submitted neither a court-issued certificate that his
`conviction has already been reversed or set aside nor proof
`of a presidential pardon. The Court of Federal Claims
`therefore properly dismissed his claims.
`
`Accordingly,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`(1) The United States’ motion for summary affirmance
`is granted. The judgment of the United States Court of
`Federal Claims is summarily affirmed.
`(2) All other motions are denied as moot.
`(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`
` November 14, 2022
` Date
`
`
`
`