Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01883/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01883-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 516
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

ALONZO SPENCER OWENS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2024-1883

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:23-cv-00314-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.

______________________

Decided: December 13, 2024

______________________

ALONZO SPENCER OWENS, New York, NY, pro se. 

 MILES JARRAD WRIGHT, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented 

by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, PATRICIA 

M. MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________

Before LOURIE, REYNA, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

Case: 24-1883 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 12/13/2024
2 OWENS v. US

PER CURIAM.

Alonzo Spencer Owens appeals pro se the United 

States Court of Federal Claims’ order dismissing his

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We 

affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Owens has a history of filing frivolous appeals with 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 

Owens v. Shields, 34 F. App’x 33, 35 (2d Cir. 2002). In 2002, 

the Second Circuit imposed sanctions on Mr. Owens that 

enjoined him from any further filings before the court 

without first obtaining leave to file. Id. Mr. Owens later

moved for leave to file an appeal in 2015. SAppx99.1 The 

Second Circuit clerk denied the motion because the 

proposed filing continued Mr. Owens’s “pattern of 

vexatious filings.” SAppx99. Soon after, Mr. Owens filed a 

claim with the United States Department of Justice 

(“DOJ”), Civil Division, Federal Tort Claim Act Office, 

alleging wrongful acts by an employee of the New York 

State Comptroller and Local Retirement System. 

SAppx84. In 2017, the Director of the DOJ Tort Branch 

sent a letter denying Mr. Owens’s claim. SAppx84 (“DOJ 

Letter”). 

In 2023, Mr. Owens filed a complaint in the Court of 

Federal Claims related to both the Second Circuit’s denial

of leave to file an appeal and the DOJ Letter. SAppx9–34. 

In 2024, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. 

Owens’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

SAppx1–8. The Court of Federal Claims found the 

complaint mostly contained “unintelligible” claims against 

the Second Circuit denial and the DOJ Letter. SAppx4.

1 “SAppx” refers to the supplemental appendix 

accompanying the Appellee’s responding brief.

Case: 24-1883 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 12/13/2024
OWENS v. US 3

From these claims, the Court of Federal Claims discerned 

several claims alleging violation of the Due Process and 

Equal Protection clauses. Id. The court decided such 

claims do not mandate payment of money and thus fall 

outside the court’s jurisdiction. Id. (citing Smith v. United 

States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). The court 

then characterized Mr. Owens’s remaining claims as 

alleging “takings” for which Mr. Owens was owed just 

compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Id. 

Specifically, the Court of Federal Claims characterized Mr. 

Owens’s claims as alleging that two actions were takings: 

the Second Circuit order denying Mr. Owens’s appeal and 

the DOJ Letter. SAppx4–8.

The Court of Federal Claims first addressed Mr. 

Owens’s claim that the Second Circuit order denying his

proposed appeal was a taking. SAppx4–7. The Court of 

Federal Claims determined there is no legal support for Mr. 

Owens’s assertion that judicially imposed sanctions are 

takings. SAppx6. Further, the court determined it cannot 

review decisions of an Article III court. SAppx5–6 (citing 

Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). 

Next, the Court of Federal Claims addressed Mr. 

Owens’s two takings claims, to the extent they were 

directed to certain individuals: the Second Circuit clerk, 

the New York employee, or the DOJ Director. SAppx6; 

SAppx8. The Court of Federal Claims determined the 

Tucker Act does not grant it jurisdiction over suits against 

individual federal or state officials. SAppx6 (citing Brown 

v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and 28 

U.S.C. § 1491(a)); SAppx8 (citing United States v. 

Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) and Brown, 105 F.3d at 

624). 

Lastly, the court determined Mr. Owens filed his

complaint after the deadlines of the relevant statutes of 

limitations. SAppx6–7. Claims within the Court of 

Federal Claims’ jurisdiction must be filed within six years 

Case: 24-1883 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 12/13/2024
4 OWENS v. US

after a claim first accrues, and tort claims against the 

United States must be filed within six months of notice of 

agency action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2501, 2401. Here, Mr. Owens’s 

complaint was filed with the Court of Federal Claims on 

February 27, 2023, well beyond the six-year and six-month

statutory deadlines. SAppx9–34. As such, the court found 

that it lacks jurisdiction. SAppx6–7.

Mr. Owens timely appeals, and we have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

“We review de novo a grant or denial of a motion to 

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.” Hopi Tribe v. United 

States, 782 F.3d 662, 666 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). 

Moreover, a “plaintiff bears the burden of establishing 

subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the 

evidence.” Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. v. United 

States, 956 F.3d 1328, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation 

omitted). A “pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, 

must be held to less stringent standards than formal 

pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 

U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citation omitted). Still, pro se plaintiffs 

are bound to jurisdictional requirements. Kelley v. Sec’y, 

U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

Mr. Owens raises no new issues on appeal. He mainly

reiterates arguments from his complaint below related to 

due process and takings. Appellant Informal Br. 1; 

Appellant Informal Reply Br. 1, 4. 

We agree with the Court of Federal Claims that it lacks 

jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over claims under the 

Due Process and Equal Protection clauses because those 

clauses are not money-mandating. SAppx4; see Smith, 709 

F.3d at 1116. We also agree with the Court of Federal 

Claims that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. 

Owens’s takings claims against the Second Circuit because 

the Court of Federal Claims may not review the actions of 

Case: 24-1883 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 12/13/2024
OWENS v. US 5

Article III courts. SAppx6; see Joshua, 17 F.3d at 380. 

Likewise, the Court of Federal Claims properly found that 

it lacked jurisdiction over the takings claims against 

individual federal employees. SAppx6; see Brown, 105 F.3d 

at 624. The Court of Federal Claims was correct to find 

that it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Owens’s claim against 

the DOJ for denying his Federal Tort Claims Act claim. 

SAppx7; see 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (the Court of Federal 

Claims may not “render judgment upon any claim against 

the United States . . . sounding in tort.”). Thus, the Court 

of Federal Claims properly found that it lacked jurisdiction 

over all claims of Mr. Owens’s complaint. 

We also agree that Mr. Owens’s complaint was filed 

after relevant statutory deadlines had run. 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2401, 2501. Mr. Owens has not identified and nor do we 

discern any error in the court’s decision to dismiss his 

complaint. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Owens’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons stated, we 

affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of Mr. 

Owens’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED

Case: 24-1883 Document: 16 Page: 5 Filed: 12/13/2024