Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01375/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01375-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas E. Bowles III
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

THOMAS E. BOWLES, III,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1375

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:14-cv-01241-VJW, Judge Victor J. Wolski.

______________________ 

Decided: May 9, 2016 

______________________ 

THOMAS E. BOWLES, III, Latham, NY, pro se. 

RICHARD PAUL SCHROEDER, 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. 

______________________ 

Before REYNA, CLEVENGER, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 16-1375 Document: 20-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/09/2016
2 BOWLES v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Thomas E. Bowles III appeals pro se a judgment of 

the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his

case for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Federal Claims

examined Mr. Bowles’ allegations and concluded that he 

failed to state a claim over which the Court of Federal 

Claims could exercise jurisdiction. We agree that none of 

Mr. Bowles’ claims fall within the Court of Federal 

Claims’ limited jurisdiction. We affirm the judgment of 

no jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Bowles apparently owned property in New York 

and was involved in a landlord-tenant dispute. Mr. 

Bowles maintains that a city court judge in Watervliet,

New York permitted three tenants to occupy Mr. Bowles’ 

property without paying rent, resulting in damage to the 

property and fines. Mr. Bowles further alleges that a 

judge in Albany County improperly foreclosed on his 

property. 

Mr. Bowles filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York to 

redress these property disputes. The district court dismissed the complaint sua sponte after finding that the 

complaint did not satisfy the minimum standard of presenting an arguably meritorious issue. The United States 

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, stating 

that Mr. Bowles’ appeal lacked an arguable basis in fact 

and law. Mr. Bowles then filed a complaint at the Court 

of Federal Claims, seeking review of the events described 

above, money damages, and an extraordinary writ of 

prohibition. 

The Court of Federal Claims determined that the 

complaint asserted claims against a Watervliet City 

judge, an Albany County judge, and Albany County’s 

Department of Taxation and Finance. The Court of 

Case: 16-1375 Document: 20-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/09/2016
BOWLES v. US 3

Federal Claims concluded that the complaint must be 

dismissed because the Court of Federal Claims has no 

jurisdiction over claims brought against state or local 

governments or their officials. 

In his complaint, Mr. Bowles cited 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

various due process violations, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the 

holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, 403 

U.S. 388 (1971). The Court of Federal Claims explained 

that its jurisdiction does not derive from those sources. 

The Court of Federal Claims also declined to issue a writ 

of prohibition enjoining the decisions of the Northern 

District of New York and the Second Circuit on grounds 

that it lacks jurisdiction to review those decisions.

On appeal, Mr. Bowles raises three new arguments. 

First, Mr. Bowles asserts that the Court of Federal 

Claims failed to consider the Veterans Economic Opportunity Act of 2013, H.R. 2481, 113th Cong. (2013), which 

he argues protects disabled veterans from home foreclosure. Second, Mr. Bowles appears to suggest that 28 

U.S.C. § 1631 requires his case to be transferred to a 

court with jurisdiction over his claims. Third, Mr. Bowles 

alleges that the United States government failed to adequately compensate him for an injury suffered while 

serving in the armed forces. 

ANALYSIS

We review de novo a Court of Federal Claims decision 

to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Banks v. United States, 

741 F.3d 1268, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A pro se plaintiff’s 

filings are to be liberally construed, but that liberal 

standard does not alleviate Mr. Bowles’ burden of establishing that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction 

over his case. Colbert v. United States, 617 F. App’x 981, 

983 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

The Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction is limited to

certain claims against the United States. See Rules of the 

Case: 16-1375 Document: 20-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/09/2016
4 BOWLES v. US

Court of Federal Claims 10(a); Pierce v. United States, 590 

F. App’x. 1000, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Stephenson v. 

United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 186, 190 (2003); see also United 

States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941). 

The Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed Mr. 

Bowles’ complaint because the Court of Federal Claims 

has no jurisdiction to resolve claims against state or local

governments or their officials. See e.g., Killingsworth 

Env’t, Inc. v. United States, 18 F. App’x. 898 (Fed. Cir. 

2001). Nor can it review decisions of other federal courts. 

See e.g., Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. 

Cir. 1994). 

This Court declines to review issues raised for the 

first time on appeal. See Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon 

Industries, Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1997). To 

the extent that Mr. Bowles now claims that the United 

States failed to provide adequate disability compensation 

or protect him from home foreclosure, we will not consider 

those allegations in the first instance. In any event, the 

Veterans Economic Opportunity Act of 2013 has not been 

passed into law. 

We are not persuaded by Mr. Bowles’ request under

28 U.S.C. § 1631, which provides that a federal court may

transfer a case to another court in certain circumstances, 

but only if such a transfer is in the interest of justice. 

Rodriguez v. United States, 862 F.2d 1558, 1559–60 (Fed.

Cir. 1988). The Northern District of New York dismissed 

Mr. Bowles’ case, the Second Circuit denied his appeal of 

that decision, and Mr. Bowles failed to assert the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. We do not believe 

that transferring Mr. Bowles’ case to yet another forum 

would be in the interest of justice. 

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Federal 

Claims for lack of jurisdiction. 

Case: 16-1375 Document: 20-2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/09/2016
BOWLES v. US 5

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-1375 Document: 20-2 Page: 5 Filed: 05/09/2016