NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LLOYD GOODNOW,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1841

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:21-cv-01883-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink.

______________________ 

Decided: November 15, 2022

______________________ 

LLOYD GOODNOW, SR., Morriston, FL, pro se. 

 MICHAEL DUANE AUSTIN, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M.

BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________ 

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and PROST, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 22-1841 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 11/15/2022
2 GOODNOW v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Lloyd Goodnow appeals a decision of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. Because the Court 

of Federal Claims properly dismissed Mr. Goodnow’s complaint, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

On October 19, 2021, Mr. Goodnow filed an amended 

complaint against the United States for breach of contract. 

S. Appx. 6–13. Mr. Goodnow alleged that a former congressman had hired his company to gain information on 

terrorist training camps. S. Appx. 11. The Court of Federal 

Claims dismissed Mr. Goodnow’s amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, determining

the complaint failed to sufficiently allege any of the essential elements of a contract with the United States. Mr. 

Goodnow filed a motion for reconsideration, which the 

Court of Federal Claims denied. Mr. Goodnow appeals. We 

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

We review a decision of the Court of Federal Claims 

dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim de novo. 

Jones v. United States, 846 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 

2017). In reviewing the dismissal, we must accept all wellpleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable 

inferences in Mr. Goodnow’s favor. Id. An express or implied-in-fact contract with the United States requires: “(1) 

mutuality of intent, (2) consideration, (3) an unambiguous 

offer and acceptance, and (4) ‘actual authority’ on the part 

of the government’s representative to bind the government 

in contract.” Hanlin v. United States, 316 F.3d 1325, 1328 

(Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting City of Cincinnati v. United 

States, 153 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).

The Court of Federal Claims did not err in dismissing 

Mr. Goodnow’s amended complaint. Mr. Goodnow’s 

Case: 22-1841 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 11/15/2022
GOODNOW v. US 3

amended complaint, even under a liberal construction, fails 

to allege the elements of a binding contract with the United 

States. Mr. Goodnow fails to allege that the former congressman had the authority to bind the United States in 

contract. Further, the amended complaint contains no details as to the essential terms of the purported agreement, 

including what services Mr. Goodnow would provide or how 

much the former congressman would pay for any services. 

See Mod. Sys. Tech. Corp. v. United States, 979 F.2d 200, 

202 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“In the absence of contractual intent 

or sufficiently definite terms, no contractual obligations 

arise.”). As the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed 

Mr. Goodnow’s complaint for failure to state a claim, we 

affirm.1

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

1 Mr. Goodnow also argues the Court of Federal 

Claims violated his due process rights because Mr. Goodnow did not have access to a document listing the deadline 

for the government to file its reply motion, causing Mr. 

Goodnow to file erroneous motions. Appellant’s Informal 

Br. at 4, 6–7. Due process requires notice and a fair opportunity to be heard. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 

470 U.S. 532, 546 (1985). Mr. Goodnow has not shown how 

filing erroneous motions harmed his ability to adjudicate 

his claim or any harm he suffered as a result. Thus, Mr. 

Goodnow has not set forth a cognizable due process claim. 

Case: 22-1841 Document: 34 Page: 3 Filed: 11/15/2022