Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05131/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05131-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 515
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TIMOTHY SNEED,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2014-5131

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:14-cv-00194-CFL, Judge Charles F. 

Lettow. 

______________________ 

Decided: May 11, 2015

______________________ 

TIMOTHY SNEED, Chipley, FL, pro se.

LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN,

JR., REGINALD T. BLADES, JR. 

______________________ 

Case: 14-5131 Document: 27-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/11/2015
2 SNEED v. US

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Sneed appeals from a decision of the Court of 

Federal Claims (the “Claims Court”) dismissing his claims 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Sneed is currently incarcerated by the Florida Department of Corrections. Sneed filed a claim in the Claims 

Court under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491. Sneed 

alleged that, inter alia, several state officials were compensated for offices that they did not lawfully hold, state 

officials committed fraud, and the state of Florida unlawfully took his property. 

The Claims Court dismissed Sneed’s claim because it, 

inter alia, 1) named individuals as defendants; 2) alleged 

criminal violations; 3) failed to cite a federal statute or 

regulation constituting a money-mandating source of law;

and 4) did not allege a taking by the United States but 

rather by the state of Florida. Sneed appealed the dismissal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(3). 

DISCUSSION

We review a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. M. Marokapis Carpentry, Inc. v. United 

States, 609 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

The Tucker Act grants jurisdiction to the Claims 

Court only “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. “The 

Tucker Act itself does not create a substantive cause of 

action; in order to come within the jurisdictional reach 

and the waiver of the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify 

Case: 14-5131 Document: 27-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/11/2015
SNEED v. US 3

a separate source of substantive law that creates the right

to money damages.” Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 

1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Sneed’s complaint seeks compensation for actions of 

Florida state officials and the state of Florida itself related to his criminal conviction. The Claims Court provides a 

forum for the adjudication of claims against the United 

States for the actions of federal agencies and officials. See 

United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 587–89 (1941)

(jurisdiction of Claims Court “is narrowly restricted to the 

adjudication of suits brought against the government 

alone”); Winston v. United States, 465 F. App’x 960, 961

(Fed. Cir. 2012) (allegations against state, state officers, 

and private individuals were not within the jurisdiction of 

the Claims Court). Sneed has identified no federal statute 

or constitutional provision that is a money-mandating 

source of law for claims against the United States for 

actions of state officials or the state of Florida. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 14-5131 Document: 27-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/11/2015