Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05081/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05081-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Edwin Barnard
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JAMES EDWIN BARNARD,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5081

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00190-MBH, Judge Marian Blank 

Horn.

______________________ 

Decided: October 9, 2015

______________________ 

 JAMES EDWIN BARNARD, Spring, TX, pro se.

 NATHANAEL YALE, 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.,

FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR. 

______________________ 

Before CHEN, MAYER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-5081 Document: 22-1 Page: 1 Filed: 10/09/2015
2 BARNARD v. US

PER CURIAM. 

James Edwin Barnard appeals from an order of the 

Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) dismissing his 

complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because 

he made no claim for money damages against the United 

States as would be required for subject-matter jurisdiction 

in the Claims Court, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Barnard filed a letter and a number of additional 

documents in the Claims Court. This letter is not styled 

as a complaint and identifies no legal basis for any relief. 

It indicates that Mr. Barnard is missing his inheritance

and seeks the appointment of a special master to assist 

him in obtaining it.

The Claims Court construed this letter as a complaint, which it dismissed sua sponte for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. Mr. Barnard appeals this dismissal. 

DISCUSSION

We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(3). We review the Claims Court’s sua sponte

dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. 

Kam-Almaz v. United States, 682 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. 

Cir. 2012). As did the Claims Court, we assume all facts 

alleged in Mr. Barnard’s documents to be true and draw 

all reasonable inferences in his favor. See Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

Because Mr. Barnard filed his documents pro se, the 

Claims Court held them to “less stringent standards than 

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” See Haines v. 

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). We share the Claims 

Court’s view that the documents Mr. Barnard submitted 

are “extremely difficult to follow.” J.A. 16. That court

treated Mr. Barnard’s documents as a complaint seeking 

relief in the form of “assistance from the United States to 

Case: 15-5081 Document: 22-1 Page: 2 Filed: 10/09/2015
BARNARD v. US 3

locate his inheritance, as well as funds and property from 

various public and private entities, and accounts.” Id. 

We find this treatment appropriate under the requirement of lenience toward Mr. Barnard. The Claims Court 

further found this complaint not to assert any claim for 

money damages against the United States, as required for

jurisdiction. Id. This finding was correct. See United 

States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216 (1983).

Mr. Barnard appears to argue on appeal that he 

“claim[s his] right to common law jurisdiction and refuse[s] statutory jurisdiction and/or admiralty jurisdiction.” Appellant’s Br. at 1. This claim fails. The Claims

Court is an Article-I court whose jurisdiction is defined by

the United States’ limited statutory consent to waive its 

sovereign immunity. See RHI Holdings v. United States, 

142 F.3d 1459, 1461 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 28 U.S.C. § 1491. 

Because the court that Mr. Barnard chose for his filing

has no jurisdiction other than that arising by this statutory consent, his attempt to “claim” some other type of 

jurisdiction fails.

Mr Barnard also alleges new facts on appeal that 

were absent from his filings with the Claims Court, 

including averments that he is entitled to money from the 

Social Security Administration in an amount related to 

the value of his weight in gold at birth. These facts are 

not properly before us on review of the Claims Court’s

dismissal of his originally filed documents, and we do not 

consider them.

AFFIRMED

No costs.

Case: 15-5081 Document: 22-1 Page: 3 Filed: 10/09/2015