Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05121/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05121-0/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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 ______________________ 

MARK C. JACKSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2014-5121

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:14-cv-00277-NBF, Judge Nancy B. Firestone. 

______________________ 

Decided: May 18, 2015 

______________________ 

MARK C. JACKSON, Starke, FL, pro se.

MEEN GEU OH, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

STUART F. DELERY, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., KIRK T.

MANHARDT. 

______________________ 

Case: 14-5121 Document: 40-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/18/2015
 2 JACKSON v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Mark C. Jackson appeals a final order of the United 

States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint. 

See Jackson v. United States, No. 1:14-cv-00277-NBF, 

2014 WL 2927157 (Fed. Cl. June 27, 2014) (“Court of 

Federal Claims Decision”). We affirm.

On April 10, 2014, Jackson, acting pro se, filed suit in 

the Court of Federal Claims. He alleged that he had been 

improperly denied Social Security benefits, as well as 

vocational rehabilitation benefits from the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (“VA”). Jackson further alleged that he 

had been falsely imprisoned, and that the State of Florida 

had wrongfully suspended his driver’s license for speeding. In addition, Jackson alleged that he had devised a 

system for using “solar powered upwelling pipes” to 

prevent hurricanes, and asserted that the United States 

was obligated to pay him $10 billion for the use of this 

system. Jackson also asked the Court of Federal Claims 

to issue a declaration stating that he was mentally competent. 

After carefully analyzing Jackson’s claims, the Court 

of Federal Claims correctly dismissed his complaint.* As 

the court properly concluded, it had no jurisdiction over 

* The court noted that Jackson was a serial filer 

who had “sought the same or similar relief in” other court 

proceedings. Court of Federal Claims Decision, 2014 WL 

2927157, at *1; see Jackson v. Colvin, No. 3:12–cv–957, 

2014 WL 54087, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2014) (dismissing 

as frivolous Jackson’s claim that he had invented a hurricane prevention device); Jackson v. United States, 311 F. 

App’x 356 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (summarily affirming the 

Court of Federal Claims’ determination that it lacked 

jurisdiction over Jackson’s claims for Social Security and 

veterans’ benefits).

 

Case: 14-5121 Document: 40-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/18/2015
JACKSON v. US 3

Jackson’s claims seeking Social Security benefits. Claims 

seeking such benefits must be filed in district court. See 

42 U.S.C. § 405; Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 

1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Nor did the Court of Federal 

Claims have authority to adjudicate Jackson’s claim that 

he had been wrongfully denied VA vocational benefits. It 

is the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims, not the Court of Federal Claims, which has 

exclusive jurisdiction over veterans’ benefits claims. See 

38 U.S.C. §§ 511(a), 7252(a); see also Hanlin v. United 

States, 214 F.3d 1319, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

The Court of Federal Claims likewise had no authority to adjudicate Jackson’s claim seeking damages for false 

imprisonment. Because a claim of false imprisonment 

sounds in tort, it falls outside the court’s jurisdictional 

reach. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); see also Quillin v. 

United States, 228 Ct. Cl. 727, 727 (1981). Likewise, the 

Court of Federal Claims was without authority to issue a 

declaration stating that Jackson is mentally competent. 

See Nat’l Air Traffic Controllers Ass’n v. United States, 

160 F.3d 714, 716 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (explaining that “[t]he 

Court of Federal Claims has never been granted general 

authority to issue declaratory judgments”).

As the Court of Federal Claims properly determined, 

moreover, it had no jurisdiction over Jackson’s claims 

against the State of Florida. Under the Tucker Act, the 

court is vested with authority to adjudicate certain claims 

brought against the United States. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1491(a)(1) (providing “jurisdiction 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”). Because the court has no authority over a claim 

seeking damages from a state, however, it could not 

review Jackson’s claim that the State of Florida wrongfulCase: 14-5121 Document: 40-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/18/2015
 4 JACKSON v. US

ly suspended his license for speeding. See Souders v. S. 

Carolina Pub. Serv. Auth., 497 F.3d 1303, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 

2007).

Finally, we conclude that the Court of Federal Claims 

properly dismissed Jackson’s claim seeking $10 billion 

from the United States for the use of his purported hurricane prevention device. Courts are obligated to dismiss 

“claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). As the 

Court of Federal Claims correctly determined, Jackson’s 

allegations regarding his purported hurricane prevention 

device were factually frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez,

504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (explaining that “a finding of 

factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged 

rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible”).

On appeal, Jackson reiterates his argument that the 

VA wrongfully denied him vocational training benefits. 

He further contends that the State of Florida was involved in a conspiracy to “circumvent [his] Double Jeopardy Rights” and keep him “unemployable [and] unable to 

vote.” Jackson fails, however, to demonstrate any error in 

the Court of Federal Claims’ decision to dismiss his 

claims. See Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 

F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance 

of the evidence, that the Court of Federal Claims has 

jurisdiction over his claims). Accordingly, we affirm the 

final order of the United States Court of Federal Claims 

dismissing Jackson’s complaint.

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-5121 Document: 40-2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/18/2015