Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02618/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02618-0/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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 ______________________ 

ANTHONY JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-2618

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-01509-VJW, Judge Victor J. Wolski.

______________________ 

Decided: January 17, 2017

______________________ 

ANTHONY JOHNSON, Philadelphia, PA, pro se. 

JEFFREY D. KLINGMAN, 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., 

DOUGLAS K. MICKLE. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, and DYK, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 16-2618 Document: 16-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/17/2017
2 JOHNSON v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Anthony Johnson appeals the judgment of the United 

States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Johnson also 

appeals the Court of Federal Claims’ denial of his motion 

to amend his complaint as futile because the additional 

asserted claim was also beyond the court’s jurisdiction. 

We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Between January and October of 2015, Johnson filed 

three civil suits in the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In these cases, Johnson

alleged that various state and federal judges had conspired to rule against him in the past due to his race. 

Each of these cases was dismissed by the district court 

judge for failure to state a claim. In response to these 

dismissals, on December 14, 2015, Johnson filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims, pursuant to the 

Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b),

alleging that these dismissals constituted a tort because 

they exhibited a systematic pattern of summarily dismissing civil rights cases filed by African Americans. The 

complaint names U.S. District Court Judges Alejandro, 

O’Neill, and Rufe, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third 

Circuit Clerk of Court Waldron, and the United States, as 

defendants.

In the complaint, Johnson alleged two causes of 

action. First, Johnson alleged that the defendants engaged in a tort by “manipulat[ing] . . . procedural due 

processes . . . governing the summary dismissal protocols 

[] [f]or the unlawful purpose of eliminating the 

gu[a]ranteed right to a jury trial of African Americans 

suing white federal officers of the Court.” JA 8. Second, 

Johnson alleged that the defendants engaged in a tort by 

“secretly misusing” taxpayer monies “for the purpose of 

Case: 16-2618 Document: 16-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/17/2017
JOHNSON v. US 3

sabotaging the right to a jury trial.” JA 9. According to 

Johnson, this misuse also amounted to a breach of fiduciary duty by the United States as a trustee of taxpayer 

funds.

On February 26, 2016, Johnson moved to amend his 

complaint by supplementing, as an additional allegation, 

the fact that Judge O’Neill issued an order requiring 

Johnson to show cause on why an injunction should not be 

issued to prevent him from filing additional lawsuits 

raising the same subjects as the cases that had already 

been dismissed by the district court in 2015.

The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Johnson’s 

complaint. First, the court noted that “claims made under 

the Federal Tort Claims Act are outside of our court’s 

subject-matter jurisdiction.” JA 16. Second, with respect 

to the misuse of taxpayer funds, the court noted that 

Johnson failed to specify how the funds were misused. 

Finally, with respect to Johnson’s motion to amend his 

complaint, the court denied the motion as futile because

reviewing the actions of a federal district court is beyond 

the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.

Johnson appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

We review de novo a decision by the Court of Federal 

Claims to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Radioshack 

Corp. v. United States, 566 F.3d 1358, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 

2009). 

Even apart from the impropriety of bringing a tort 

claim against the government for actions of federal judges 

in their decision-making capacities, it is clear that the 

Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over claims 

against the government under the FTCA. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1491(a)(1). “The plain language of the Tucker Act 

Case: 16-2618 Document: 16-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/17/2017
4 JOHNSON v. US

[which created Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction] 

excludes from the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction 

claims sounding in tort.” Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. 

United States, 521 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

Therefore, the Court of Federal Claims correctly dismissed Johnson’s tort claims for lack of jurisdiction.

On appeal, Johnson argues that the United States 

breached its fiduciary duty by misusing taxpayer funds. 

Taxpayers lack standing to sue for alleged misuse of tax 

funds. Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 

125, 134–36 (2011).

Finally, with respect to Johnson’s motion to amend 

his complaint to supplement allegations concerning a 

district court injunction, we agree that “the Court of 

Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to review the 

decisions of district courts.” Joshua v. United States, 17 

F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-2618 Document: 16-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/17/2017