Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05099/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05099-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Ramirez Garcia
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JOSE RAMIREZ GARCIA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5099

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00407-JFM, Senior Judge James F. 

Merow.

______________________ 

Decided: October 8, 2015 

______________________ 

JOSE RAMIREZ GARCIA, Philipsburg, PA, pro se. 

ERIN MURDOCK-PARK, 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.,

SCOTT D. AUSTIN.

______________________ 

Case: 15-5099 Document: 19-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/08/2015
2 GARCIA v. US

Before NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, and O’MALLEY, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Appellant Jose Ramirez Garcia appeals the April 28, 

2015 decision of the United States Court of Federal 

Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. For the below reasons, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

After a jury trial in the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa, Garcia was convicted of 

various drug related offenses in April of 2005. United 

States v. Jose Ramirez Garcia, No. 4:04-cr-214, Dkt. No. 

79 (S.D. Iowa Apr. 5, 2004), aff’d, 441 F.3d 597 (8th Cir. 

2006). The district court then sentenced Garcia to 15 

years imprisonment. Id. Garcia thereafter moved to set 

aside his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the district 

court denied those motions. Id. Having exhausted his 

right to seek further relief under § 2255 without the prior 

permission of the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Eighth Circuit, Garcia sought such permission in two 

separate petitions, which the circuit court denied. Jose 

Ramirez Garcia v. United States, No. 14-3343 (8th Cir. 

Mar. 10, 2015). 

On April 17, 2015, Garcia filed a complaint in the 

Court of Federal Claims, arguing that the Eighth Circuit’s 

March 2015 denial of his application for permission to file

successive § 2255 motions was improper, that Garcia was 

actually innocent, and that the district court erred in 

sentencing him to fifteen years imprisonment. Jose 

Ramirez Garcia v. United States, No. 15-cv-407, Dkt. No. 

1 (Ct. Fed. Claims Apr. 17, 2015). The Court of Federal 

Claims sua sponte dismissed Garcia’s complaint for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. Jose Ramirez Garcia v. 

United States, No. 15-cv-407, Dkt. No. 4 (Ct. Fed. Claims 

Apr. 28, 2015). 

Case: 15-5099 Document: 19-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/08/2015
GARCIA v. US 3

Garcia appeals the judgment of the Court of Federal 

Claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(3). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Waltner v. United States, 679 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. 

Cir. 2012). Our scope of appellate review is limited to the 

record established in the proceedings before the trial 

court. Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc., 126 

F.3d 1420, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Any arguments not 

brought before the trial court are deemed waived. San 

Carlos Apache Tribe v. United States, 639 F.3d 1346, 

1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

DISCUSSION

Garcia’s complaint before the Court of Federal Claims 

pled dissatisfaction with the Eighth Circuit’s judgment. 

Upon a review of Garcia’s claims, the Court of Federal 

Claims determined that Garcia had not alleged any cause 

of action over which the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court dismissed the complaint.

The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction. It is vested with jurisdiction under the Tucker 

Act to adjudicate monetary claims against the United 

States founded upon the Takings Clause of the United 

States Constitution, Acts of Congress, regulations, or 

contracts, and requires a money mandating act to confirm 

jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); United States v. 

Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 215-218 (1983). The Court of 

Federal Claims “has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any 

claims whatsoever under the federal criminal code.” 

Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

It does not have jurisdiction to review the judgments of 

the United States district courts or circuit courts. 

Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United States, 782 F.3d 

Case: 15-5099 Document: 19-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/08/2015
4 GARCIA v. US

1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We thus find no error in the 

Court of Federal Claims’ conclusions that it lacks jurisdiction to review the judgments of the Eighth Circuit, and 

that Garcia has failed to allege a cause of action over 

which the court has subject matter jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of 

the Court of Federal Claims.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-5099 Document: 19-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/08/2015