Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05087/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05087-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 528
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MELL T. BRU’TON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5087

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:14-cv-00744-LB, Judge Lawrence J. 

Block. 

______________________ 

Decided: October 9, 2015

______________________ 

MELL T. BRU’TON, Only, TN, pro se.

DANIEL S. HERZFELD, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented 

by MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

BENJAMIN C. MIZER. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-5087 Document: 21-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/09/2015
2 BRU’TON v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Mell T. Bru’ton appeals the decision of the Court of 

Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for failure to 

prosecute. Because the Court of Federal Claims lacked 

subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Bru’ton’s claims, we 

affirm. 

BACKGROUND

On Aug. 18, 2014, Mell T. Bru’ton brought this case 

against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims 

based on the alleged wrongful death of Anthony A. Bruton, Jr., a relative of the plaintiff. On Oct. 17, 2014, the 

United States moved under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of 

the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) to dismiss Mr. 

Bru’ton’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Eventually, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. 

Bru’ton’s case for failure to prosecute. The Court of 

Federal Claims denied Mr. Bru’ton’s motions for reconsideration under RCFC 59 and 60, and Mr. Bru’ton appealed 

to this court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1295(a)(3). 

DISCUSSION

Subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Federal 

Claims is a question of law, which we review de novo. 

Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 264 F.3d 

1071, 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing RAMCOR Servs. Group 

v. United States, 185 F.3d 1286, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). 

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised as a 

ground for dismissal at any stage of litigation, including 

appeal. Cent. Pines Land Co. v. United States, 697 F.3d 

1360, 1364 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Arbaugh v. Y & H 

Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506-07 (2006)). 

Mr. Bru’ton’s complaint alleges torts committed by 

the Department of Veterans Affairs leading to the wrongful death of Anthony A. Bruton, Jr. The Court of Federal 

Case: 15-5087 Document: 21-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/09/2015
BRU’TON V. US 3

Claims does not have subject matter jurisdiction over tort 

or wrongful death claims. The jurisdiction of the Court of 

Federal Claims stems primarily from the Tucker Act, 

which grants the court jurisdiction over “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) (emphasis added). It is well established that the Court of Federal Claims does not have 

jurisdiction over tort claims. See, e.g., Trafny v. United 

States, 503 F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Martinez v. 

United States, 391 Fed.Appx. 876, 878 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

Suits seeking money damages from the United States for 

tort or wrongful death must instead be brought in U.S. 

district court under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 1346 et seq. On appeal Mr. Bru’ton raises a 

number of other tort claims based on alleged injuries to 

himself. These claims are equally outside the jurisdiction 

of the Court of Federal Claims.

Mr. Bru’ton also asserts a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1495. Under this statute, the Court of Federal Claims 

has jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for damages by any 

person unjustly convicted of an offense against the United 

States and imprisoned. However, Mr. Bru’ton is currently 

imprisoned by the State of Tennessee for state law crimes, 

not by the United States. Section 1495 cannot provide an 

alternative ground for jurisdiction. Robinson v. United 

States, 230 F.3d 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (unpublished table 

decision) (“[A] claim under § 1495 is cognizable only if the 

claimant was unjustly convicted of a crime against the 

United States.”). 

The Court of Federal Claims never had subject matter 

jurisdiction over Mr. Bru’ton’s complaint, and on this 

basis we affirm the court’s dismissal of his suit. We need 

Case: 15-5087 Document: 21-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/09/2015
4 BRU’TON v. US

not decide whether the Court of Federal Claims properly 

dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 15-5087 Document: 21-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/09/2015