Lucas v. United States
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Wood v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2009)
- Dethlefs v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2004)
- Humphrey v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2002)
- Lopez Pena v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2023)
- Jackson v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2022)
- Brewer v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2021)
- Alston-Bullock v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2015)
- Robert David Neal v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2013)
- Salman v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2005)
- Perry Du. Wayne Caudle v. United States (Fed. Cir. 1994)
- Moore v. United States (Court of Claims 1982)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Plaintiff, a resident of the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana, petitions pro se for money damages at the rate of $150 per day and for a permanent injunction requiring his release from alleged unjust imprisonment. Plaintiff alleges mental sufferings and deprivation of liberty without just cause. He alleges broadly that his constitutional rights have been violated and that he has been unsuccessful in having his conviction overturned both through habeas corpus actions and on direct appeal. Defendant has moved to dismiss on the grounds of our lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or, in the alternative, that plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted by this court.
Our jurisdiction in cases of unjust conviction and imprisonment is set forth in the statutes, but is severely restricted. 28 U.S.C. §§1495 and 2513 (1976). It is clear that Congress carefully limited the availability of these statutes to those who are truly innocent. This court has consistently insisted on a strict compliance with the statutory requirements. Where, as here, suit is brought and no showing is made that plaintiff has obtained the requisite certificate of innocence by the court, or pardon, this court will not entertain the claim. Calloway v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 1065 (1978); Stout v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 722 (1976); Vincin v. United States, 199 Ct. Cl. 762, 468 F.2d 930 (1972). Plaintiff here has not met the requirements of the statute and we have no jurisdiction.
it is therefore ordered that the defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. The petition is dismissed.
Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration was denied November 20,1981.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.