NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JOSEPH CHAMPION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5027

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:14-cv-00955-MBH, Judge Marian Blank 

Horn.

______________________ 

Decided: September 11, 2015

______________________ 

 JOSEPH CHAMPION, Westwood, CA, 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.,

DONALD E. KINNER. 

______________________ 
2 CHAMPION v. US

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Appellant Joseph Champion appeals from a United 

States Court of Federal Claims decision dismissing his 

complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Because we agree that

the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction 

over Mr. Champion’s tort claims, we affirm.

Mr. Champion filed this case in the Court of Federal 

Claims on October 6, 2014. In his complaint, Mr. Champion alleges that on December 30, 2012, he went to the 

Westwood, California United States Postal Office to 

collect his mail. When he entered the building, Mr. 

Champion slipped on snow melt, fell, and struck his head 

and shoulder. Mr. Champion alleges that he sustained 

injuries from the fall, including a leg infection and shoulder and neck pain. The complaint seeks damages from 

the United States to compensate for the alleged injuries,

medical expenses, and loss of quality of life. Mr. Champion also asks for a permanent injunction against the 

government for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Court of Federal Claims, however, does not have 

authority to decide the merits of Mr. Champion’s claim or 

to award the relief he seeks. The Tucker Act, a statute 

passed by Congress, establishes the scope of the Court of 

Federal Claims’ jurisdiction to hear claims against the 

United States. The relevant portion of the Act provides

that 

[t]he United States Court of Federal Claims shall 

have 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 up-
CHAMPION v. US 3

on any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort. 

28 U.S.C. § 1491 (emphasis added). As the emphasis 

demonstrates, and as we have previously held, “[i]t is well 

settled that the United States Court of Federal Claims 

lacks . . . jurisdiction to entertain tort claims.” Shearin v. 

United States, 992 F.2d 1195, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 

Here, Mr. Champion’s claim sounds in tort because it 

alleges that the United States was negligent in failing to 

take precautions against accidents like Mr. Champion’s. 

The Tucker Act explicitly states that the Court of Federal 

Claims cannot hear such claims, so the Court of Federal 

Claims properly dismissed Mr. Champion’s damages 

claims for lack of jurisdiction. Similarly, the Court of 

Federal Claims does not have authority to grant Mr. 

Champion’s requested injunction, so the Court of Federal 

Claims properly dismissed that claim as well. See Nat’l 

Air Traffic Controllers Ass’n v. United States, 160 F.3d 

714, 716 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

As to Mr. Champion’s arguments that the Court of 

Federal Claims ignored the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) laws, the Court of Federal Claims did 

not make a decision on the merits of Mr. Champion’s 

claim. The Court of Federal Claims lacks the power to 

adjudicate his claim, so the law forbids the Court of 

Federal Claims from deciding the merits of Mr. Champion’s claim.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear their own costs.