N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ THOMAS E. BOWLES, II I, 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

______________________

T HOMAS E. B OWLES , III, Latham, NY, pro se

.

R ICHARD P AUL S CHROEDER , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant -appellee. Also represented by B ENJAMIN C. M IZER , R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN , J R ., A LLISON K IDD -M ILLER

.

______________________

Before R EYNA , C LEVENGER , and W ALLACH , Circuit Judges.BOWLES v. US 2

P ER C URIAM

. 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 Co urt of Federal Claims examined Mr. Bowles’ allegations an d concluded that he failed to state a claim over which t he Court of Federal Claims could exercise jurisdiction. We agree that none of Mr. Bowles ’ claims fall within the Court of Federal Claims’ limi ted jurisdiction . W e affirm the judgment of no jurisdiction

. B ACKGROUND

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

proper ty and fines. Mr. Bowles further alleges that a judge in Albany County improperly foreclosed on his property

. Mr. Bowles filed a complaint in th e United States Di strict Court for the Northern District of New York to redress these property disputes. The district court di smissed the c ompl aint sua sponte after finding that the

c omplaint did not satisfy the minimum standard of pr esent ing an arguably meritorious issue . T he 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 ext raordinary writ of prohibition.

The Court of Federal Claims determined that the

c omplaint assert ed c laims against a Watervliet City judge, an Albany County judge, and Albany County’s Department of Taxa tion and Finance. The Court ofBOWLES v. US 3

Fed eral Claims concluded that the c omplaint 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 c omplaint, Mr. Bo wl es cited 42 U.S.C. § 1983, various due process violations, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a nd the holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents , 403 U.S. 388 (1971) . T he Court of Federal Claims explai ned that it s jurisdic tion 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 jurisdic tion to review those deci sions

. On appeal, M r. Bowles raises three new arguments. First, Mr. Bowles a sserts that the Court of Federal Claims failed to consider the Veterans Economic Oppo rtunity Act of 2013, H.R. 2481 , 113th Cong. ( 2013), which he argues protects disabled veterans from home forecl os ure

. Second, Mr. Bowles appe ars 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 fail ed to ad equately compensate him fo r an injury suffered while serving in the armed forces.

A NALYSIS

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 esta blishing that the Court of Federal Claims h as jurisdiction over his case. Colbert v. United States , 617 F. App ’ x 981, 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

The Court of Federa l Claims ’ jurisdiction is limited to certain claims against the United States

. See R ules of theBOWLES v. US 4

Court of Federal Claims 10(a); Pierce v. United States , 59 0 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 government s 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 C ourt declines to review issue s 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 t he United States failed to provide adequate disability compensa tion or protect him from home foreclosure, we will not consider those allegations in the first instance. In any event, the Veterans Economic Oppo rtunity 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 Dis t rict of New York dismissed Mr. Bowles’ case, the Second Circuit denied his appeal of that decision

, and Mr. Bowles failed to assert the jurisdi ction 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

.BOWLES v. US 5

AFFIRMED

C OSTS

No costs.