Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01733/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01733-0/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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 ______________________ 

MACK A. BETTS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1733

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:16-cv-00050-CFL, Judge Charles F. 

Lettow. 

______________________ 

Decided: July 8, 2016

______________________ 

MACK A. BETTS, Detroit, MI, pro se.

DEVIN ANDREW WOLAK, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

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

represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR., ALLISON KIDD-MILLER. 

______________________ 

Case: 16-1733 Document: 12-2 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2016
2 BETTS v. US

Before PROST, Chief Judge, BRYSON and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Mack Betts appeals the dismissal of his complaint for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction by the U.S. Court of 

Federal Claims. For the reasons discussed below, we 

affirm.

BACKGROUND

On December 28, 2015, Mr. Betts filed a complaint 

with the Court of Federal Claims seeking review of his 

“Request for Benefits for Nine Dependents.” Appellee’s 

App. 3. Mr. Betts’s request was based on a workplace 

injury and a subsequent denial of benefits in an action 

Mr. Betts brought against his employer at the Michigan 

Compensation Appellate Commission. 

The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Betts’s request for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the 

United States was not a party to the dispute. The Court 

of Federal Claims also declined to transfer the case to 

another federal court because no federal court would have 

jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 

Mr. Betts subsequently filed this appeal and seeks an 

order for payment to compensate for the time he lost from 

work while injured. 

DISCUSSION

We review the legal question of subject matter jurisdiction de novo, without deference to the Court of Federal 

Claims. Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1115 

(Fed. Cir. 2013). We review decisions not to transfer a 

case under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 for an abuse of discretion. 

Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 

1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Case: 16-1733 Document: 12-2 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2016
BETTS v. US 3

I 

Unlike other federal courts, the jurisdiction of the 

Court of Federal Claims is limited by statute to “money 

judgments in suits brought for relief against the United 

States.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941). 

That is, there is no jurisdiction over claims against private parties.

Here, Mr. Betts’s complaint is not against the United 

States; it is against his employer. Consequently, the 

Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over 

Mr. Betts’s case. The Court of Federal Claims did not err 

in this determination.

II

When a case has been filed in a federal court that does 

not have jurisdiction, that court may, in its discretion, 

transfer that case to any federal court where jurisdiction 

would be proper “if it is in the interest of justice.” See 28 

U.S.C. § 1631. For a transfer to be in the “interests of 

justice,” there must be jurisdiction in another federal 

court. See id; Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343 

(1960).

In this case, the Court of Federal Claims determined 

that there would be no jurisdiction over Mr. Betts’s claims 

in any federal court under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 

Named for two Supreme Court cases, the doctrine holds 

that federal courts are without subject matter jurisdiction 

when four conditions are met: (1) the case is brought by 

an unsuccessful party in a state court action; (2) the 

plaintiff complains of injuries caused by the state court 

judgment; (3) the state court case terminated before 

litigation started in federal court; and (4) the unsuccessful 

party requests that the federal court review and reject the

state court judgment. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic 

Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283 (2005).

Case: 16-1733 Document: 12-2 Page: 3 Filed: 07/08/2016
4 BETTS v. US

We agree with the Court of Federal Claims that all 

four conditions are met. First, Mr. Betts initially brought 

suit against his employer in Michigan state court. Second, Mr. Betts seeks compensation based on the state 

court’s denial of benefits. Third, the state court made its 

decision before Mr. Betts filed his complaint at the Court 

of Federal Claims. Finally, Mr. Betts requests that the 

Court of Federal Claims review and reject that decision. 

Because the conditions for the Rooker-Feldman doctrine are met, no federal court would have subject matter 

jurisdiction over Mr. Betts’s complaint. Therefore, the 

Court of Federal Claims did not abuse its discretion in 

declining to transfer Mr. Betts’s case under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1631.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the dismissal of 

Mr. Betts’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear their own costs.

Case: 16-1733 Document: 12-2 Page: 4 Filed: 07/08/2016