N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

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

______________________ ROBERT B. MILGROOM, NADA MARTL, Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2015

- 5145

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:15

- cv

- 00193

- MBH, Judge Marian Blank Horn.

______________________

Decided: June 10, 2016

______________________

R OBERT B. M ILGROOM , Miami Beach, FL, pro se.

N ADA M ARTL , Miami Beach, FL, pro se.

D OUGLAS G LENN E DELSCHICK , 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 ., D EBORAH A. B YNUM

.

______________________MILGROOM v. US 2

Before P ROST , Chief Judge

, P LAGER and L OURIE , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. Robert B. Milgroom (“Milgroom”) and Nada Martl (“Martl”) (collectively, “ the Appellants”) appeal from the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”) dismissing their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Milgroom v. United States , 122 Fed. Cl. 779 (2015). Becaus e the Claims Court did not err in dismissing the complaint, we affirm

. B ACKGROUND

I
In 1987, Mary Valvanis, John Valvanis, and George Valvanis (collectively, “Valvanis”) filed a lawsuit against Milgroom in the Superior Court for the County of Norfolk, Massachusetts, alleging that Milgroom “illegally used his influence as an attorney and certified public accountant for the Valvanis Family business . . . to divert to his own benefit monies raised by the mortgaging of and sale of the company assets.” Def.

- Appellee’s App. (“D.A.”) 173

– 74
, 222. In October 2005, the state court entered default against Milgroom after he failed to appear for a final pretrial conference or otherwise participate in the action. Id. at 174

– 75, 223. The state court awarded Valvan is close to $4 million in damages in 2007. Id. at 175, 224. On July 11, 2005, Milgroom filed a bankruptcy pet ition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Di strict of Hawaii

. Id. at 43

– 44. Prior to filing that petition, Milgroom married Martl in 2 001 and transferred millions of dollars in cash and other assets to Martl, who then filed for divorce. Id. at 176

– 82, 224

– 27. Martl held the tran sferred funds in a foreign bank account and supported Milgroom financially even after their divorce was fina lized on June 28, 2005

. Id.MILGROOM v. US 3

Valvanis did not learn of Milgroom’s bankruptcy filing until November 2005

. Id. at 68

– 69 , 71. On May 12, 2006, the bankruptcy court found Milgroom in contempt of court, imposed sanctions against him, granted immediate relief to Valvanis from the automatic bankruptcy stay nunc pro tunc as of July 11, 2005, and authorized Valv anis to pursue or continue litigati on against Milgroom in any state or Federal court. Id. at 67

– 84. The bankruptcy court then entered final judgment dismissing the ban kruptcy case with prejudice

. Id. at 86

– 87. Milgroom did not appeal from the bankruptcy court’s final judgment

. In March 2006, Valvanis filed a complaint against Martl in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. Valvanis v. Martl , No. 06

- 00144 (D. Haw. f iled Mar. 10, 2006) (“ Valvanis ”) ; D.A. 94

. On May 23, 2006, Valvanis filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) adding Milgroom as a defendant. D.A. 95. Valvanis alleged that Milgroom and Martl sought to evade Milgroom’s creditors by using Milgroom’s money to purchase real property located at 253 Pu’uikena Drive, Honolulu, Hawaii (“the Hawaii property”) for $5.2 million in cash, transferring that property and other assets to Martl for no consider ation , and then filing for divorce and releasing Milg room’s interest in the Hawaii property

. Valvanis thus asserted

an equitable interest in the Hawaii proper ty.

I n December 2007, the clerk of the district court e ntered default against Martl for her failure to answer or otherwise plead to the FAC. Id. at 185 , 230 . Valvanis then filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”) against Milgroom. In December 2008, the district court entered default against Milgroom on the SAC for his willful viol ations of numerous court orders and rules. Id. at 186 , 232

. In June 2009, the district court granted Valvanis’ m otions for entry of def ault judgment against Milgroom and against Martl. Id. at 171

– 258 . The court then entered final judgment

. Id. at 260

– 63. The court awarded da m-MILGROOM v. US 4

ages to Valvanis to the extent that they had not been fully recovered in the Massachu setts action , as well as p unitive damages against Milgroom. The court imposed a co nstructive trust on the Hawai i property and all assets in that property for the benefit of Valvanis, and directed a
court

- appointed receiver to oversee the sale of that property to satisfy the judgment. Later in 2009 , the receiver sold the Hawaii property at an auction to a third

- party private entity and provided the net proceeds to Valvani s. Id. at 264

– 67. Neither Milgroom nor Martl appealed from the district court’s fin al judgment

. II
On March 2, 2015, Milgroom and Martl jointly filed a complaint against the United States in the Claims Court, which gave rise to the present appeal. In their complaint, they alleg ed that the district court violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by entering a civil judgment against them in Valvanis , which resulted in th e sale of the Hawaii property, notwithstanding the automatic bankruptcy stay. Id.
at 32

– 42. They requested money dam ages for the alleged taking o f their real and personal properties without just compensation. Id. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . T he Claims Court granted the motion and dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction

. Milgroom , 122 Fed. Cl. at 803

. First, the Claims Court found that Martl had prev iously filed two complaints against the Un ited States in the Claims Court alleging the same claims based on th e alleged taking of the Hawaii property by the district court, and that the Claims C ourt had dismissed those complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 790

– 91. T he court concluded in this case that Martl was barred by claim preclusion and issue preclusion from bringing her claims for a third time. Id. at 792

– 96. B ecause Milgro om was not a party in the two prior la w-MILGROOM v. US 5

suits filed by Martl, the court concluded that hi s claims were not barred by preclusion. Id. at 796

. But the Claims Court analyzed Milgroom’s and Martl’s claims collectively and concluded that it lacked jurisdiction o ver all of the claims regard less of claim or issue preclusion

. Id. Specifically, the court dismissed the constitutional claims based on the Fourth Amendment, the due process component of the Fifth Amendment, an d the Tenth Amendment, because it is well

- established that those provisions are not money

- mandating. Id. at 800

– 01

. The court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the alleged taking by the district court because review of su ch a judicial takings claim would require the Claims Court to scruti nize the merits of district court and bankruptcy court decisions , a task it is without authority to undertake. Id. at 801

– 02

. Finally, the Claims Court found the complaint to be “frivolous” and barred further filing s based on the same subject mat ter absent approval by the c ourt. Id. at 803. The Appellants timely appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

D ISCUSSION
We review the Claims Court’s decision to dismiss for la ck of subject matter jurisdiction de novo

. Waltner v. United States , 679 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, Taylor v. United States

, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Ci r. 2002), and “the leniency afforded pro se litigants with respect to mere formalities does not relieve them of jurisdictional requirements,” Demes v. United States , 52 Fed. Cl. 365, 368 (2002) (citing Kelley v. Sec ’y, U.S. Dep’t of Labor , 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987))

. The Appellants argue that the district court effected

a n unconstitutional taking of the Hawaii property and itsMILGROOM v. US 6

contents by supervising the sale of that property “to an entity that wanted to convert the Property int o a small vacation resort . . .

, which would benefit that part of Hawaii by creating jobs and improving the economy.” Pls.

- Appellants’ Br. 1, 3, 6, 10 , 12, 16, 17

– 18, 22, 23, 31
, 32 . They challenge the validity of the district court’s judgment, arguing that Valvanis failed to state a valid claim

, that Valvanis filed their complaint and amended complaints in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay, that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Valvanis’ claims

, and that the district court improperly ordered the sale of the Hawaii property owned by Martl to satisfy Milgroom’s debt

. T hey also question the validity of the Massachu setts state court’s judgment

. But they contend that t hey did not request the Claims Court to review a district court or bankruptcy court judgment. T hey allege violations of due process and other constitutional prov isions

. Finally, Martl also argues that her claims in this

case were not barred by claim or issue preclusion

. The government responds that the Claims Court co rrectly determined that it did not possess jurisdiction to entertain the claims asserted by the Appellants for a lleged violations of constitutional provisions that are not

money- mandating and for review of district court and bankruptcy court judgments. The government also r esponds that the Appellants’ argument is based on a faulty premise that the automatic bankruptcy stay somehow deprived the district court of jurisdiction to enter a jud gment in 2009 , when the dockets of those cases demo nstrate that no act ion was filed against Milgroom until after the bankruptcy court lifted the stay

. We agree with the government that the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction. The Claims Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Brown v. United States , 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Congress created the Claims Court “to permit a special and limited class of cases to proceed against the United States, ” and the Claims Court “canMILGROOM v. US 7

take cognizance only of those [claims] which by the terms of some act of Congress are committed to it.” Hercules Inc. v. United States , 516 U.S. 417, 423 (1996) (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omi tted). The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, limits the juri sdiction of the Claims Court to claims for money damages against the United States based on sources of substantive law that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compe nsation by the Federal Government.” United States v. Navajo Nation , 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) (internal quot ation marks omitted). Here, the Claims Cour t correctly determined that none of the Appellants’ claims were tied to money

- mandating statutes or provisions of law or any contract with the United States, thus depriving the Claims Court of jurisdic tion over their claims.
Specifically, the Claims Court correctly dismissed the Appellants’ constitutional claims based on the Fourth Amendment, the Due P rocess Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment. S uch claims are
not tied to money- mandating sources of law

, and the Claims Court does not poss ess jurisdiction to entertain them. Brown

, 105 U.S. at 623

– 24 (Fourth Amendment); Crocker v. United States , 125 F.3d 1475 , 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Fifth Amendment due process); Carpenter v. Uni ted States , 603 F. App’x 935, 937 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Tenth Amendment) ; Fry v. United States , 72 Fed. Cl. 500, 508 (2006) (“Nothing in the language of [the Tenth Amen dment] ‘ can fairly be interpreted as mandating compens ation by the Federal Government

. . . .’ ” (quoting United States v. Mi t chell , 463 U.S. 206, 216 (1983))); see also Milgroom , 122 Fed. Cl. at 800

– 01 (collecting cases).
Likewise, the Claims Court correctly dismissed the remaining judicial takings claim s

. While the Claims Court does possess jurisdiction to consider certain takings claims under the Fifth Amendment , it may only exercise that jurisdiction when the claimant “ concede [s] the valid ity of the government action which is the basis of theMILGROOM v. US 8

taking claim to bring suit under the Tucker Act.” Tabb Lakes, Ltd. v. United States , 10 F.3d 796, 802

– 03 (Fe d. Cir. 1993). Here, the Appellants challenge the validity of the district court’ s judgment, which forms the basis of their takings claim

. Moreover, as we have explained , the Claims Court does not possess jurisdiction to review the judgments of district courts and bankruptcy courts. Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United States , 782 F.3d 1345, 1352

– 53 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (district court); Allustiarte v. United States , 256 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (bankruptcy court); see also Milgroom , 122 Fed. Cl. at 801

– 02 (collecting cases). The Appellants attempt to couch their allegations in terms of a Fifth Amendment taking by the district court, but the Claims Court could not review those allegations without second

- guessing the merits of the district court and bankruptcy court decisions . Thus, the true nature of the Appellants’ claims is a collat eral attack on the final judgments of the district court and bankruptcy court. The Claims Court does not possess jurisdiction to entertain them. Pines Residential Treatment Ctr., Inc. v. United States , 444 F.3d 1379, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Regardless of a party’s characterization of its claim, we look to the true nature of the action in determining the existence or not of jurisdic tion.” ) (internal quotation marks and c it ation omitted).
We have considered the Appellants’ remaining arg uments and conclude that they are without merit. Accor dingly, the Claims Court did not err in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over all of the Appellant s’ claims. In light of our res olution of this appeal on jurisdictional grounds, we need not address the preclusion grounds of the Claims Court’s decision.

C ONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Claims Court is affirmed

.MILGROOM v. US 9

AFFIRMED