NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

STEVEN JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2023-1716

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:22-cv-01741-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank 

Horn.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Steven Johnson appeals from the judgment of the 

United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction and moves for leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis. We summarily affirm.

Mr. Johnson sued the United States in the Court of 

Federal Claims seeking five million dollars for medical 

Case: 23-1716 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 07/13/2023
2 JOHNSON v. US

malpractice, cyberbullying, “injustice,” and violations of his 

civil rights, including false imprisonment, and violations of 

the Privacy Act. The United States moved to dismiss for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the Court of Federal 

Claims granted the motion.

The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, limits the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims to monetary claims not 

sounding in tort against the United States based on a 

source of substantive law that “can fairly be interpreted as 

mandating compensation by the Federal Government.” 

United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) 

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, 

the Court of Federal Claims properly determined that it 

lacked jurisdiction to hear Mr. Johnson’s claims. 

The false imprisonment, malpractice, and cyberbullying claims, the Court of Federal Claims properly held, 

sound in tort, and are thus outside the Tucker Act grant of 

jurisdiction. The Court of Federal Claims was likewise correct that Mr. Johnson cannot sue in that court for violations of the civil rights statutes that Mr. Johnson identified 

or the Privacy Act. See Shelden v. United States, 742 F. 

App’x 496, 501–02 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (noting claims for violations of the Civil Rights Act vest exclusively in the federal 

district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4)); see also 5 

U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1) (granting federal district courts jurisdiction in matters under the Privacy Act); Conner v. United 

States, 641 F. App’x 972, 975 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding 

that there is no Tucker Act jurisdiction over Privacy Act 

claims). Finally, Mr. Johnson’s vague claim of “injustice” 

was not premised on any specific source of substantive law 

that imposed a money-mandating obligation on the United 

States. 

Because Mr. Johnson’s brief does not identify any legal 

error in the dismissal order and because the merits of the 

parties’ positions are so clear “that no substantial question 

regarding the outcome of the appeal exists,” we summarily 

Case: 23-1716 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 07/13/2023
JOHNSON v. US 3

affirm the trial court’s judgment on appeal. Joshua v. 

United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The judgment of the United States Court of Federal 

Claims is summarily affirmed.

(2) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

is denied as moot.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

July 13, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow 

Clerk of Court

Case: 23-1716 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 07/13/2023