N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

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

______________________ ERIC MALONE, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1899

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:22

- cv

- 01910

- EDK, Chief Judge Elaine Kaplan.

______________________

Decided: September 10, 2024

______________________

E RIC M ALONE , Palm Desert, CA, pro se.

B RENDAN D AVID J ORDAN , Commercial LitigationBranch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by B RIAN M. B OYNTON , P ATRICIA M. M C C ARTHY , F RANKLIN E. W HITE , J R

.

______________________

Before M OORE , Chief Judge

, L INN and P ROST , Circuit Judges

. Case: 23-1899 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 09/10/2024MALONE v. US 2

P ER C URI AM

. Eric Malone appeals a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm

. B ACKGROUND On February 9, 2022, Mr. Malone filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Toyota Motor Sales (Toyota) seeking enforcement of an alleged arbitration award. The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Malone v. Toyota Motor Sales , No. CV220929FMOPVCX, 2022 WL 20834631 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2022)

. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed

. Malone v. Sales , No. 22

- 562 01, 2023 WL 6889889 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2023) . Mr. Malone appealed the district court and the Ninth Circuit’s decision s to us, and we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Malone v. Toyota Motor Sales , No. 2024

- 1340, 2024 WL 1403641 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2024)

. On December 27, 2022 , Mr. Malone filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims naming the United States as the defendant and sought enforcement of the alleged arbitration award against Toyot a

. The government filed a motion to dismiss , which the Court of Federal Claims granted

. The Court of Federal Claims concluded Mr. Malone did not raise a claim within its jurisdiction. Appx. 5 –7. 1
Mr. Malone timely appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

1 “ Appx.” refers to the appendix filed by Mr. Malone, ECF No. 32. Case: 23-1899 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 09/10/2024MALONE v. US 3

D ISCUSSIONThe Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over actions “founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of anexecutive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for l iquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The jurisdiction of the Court of FederalClaims under the Tucker Act is “limited to actual, presently due money damages from the United States.” United States v. Testan , 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). We review the dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Res. Conservation Grp., LLC v. United States

, 597 F.3d 1238, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. The Court of Federal Claims properly concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over Mr. Malone’s claim , which is a request for enforcement of an alleged arbitration agreement against Toyota, not a claim for money damages against the United States under the Tucker Act

. See United States v. Sherwood , 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (“[The Court of Federal Claims’] jurisdiction is confined to the rendition of money judgments in suits brought for that relief against the United States, and if the relief sought is
ag ainst others than the United States the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court. ” (internal citations omitted) ).
Mr. Malone also argues he has not been adequately represented by the United States in a case pending in the Ninth Circuit. Appellant’s Informal Br. at 2. The Court of Federal Claims has no jurisdiction over such a claim

. Moreover, the United States has never represented Mr. Malone, who is a pro se plaintiff

- appellant in this appeal and in the Ninth Circuit case. Case: 23-1899 Document: 39 Page: 3 Filed: 09/10/2024MALONE v. US 4

C ONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Malone’s remaining arguments and find them without merit

. For the reasons discussed above, the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction

. Accordingly, we affirm

. AFFIRMED

C OSTS

No costs. Case: 23-1899 Document: 39 Page: 4 Filed: 09/10/2024