NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SOLOMON UPSHAW,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5032

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:14-cv-00569-SGB, Judge Susan G. 

Braden.

______________________ 

Decided: April 14, 2015

______________________ 

SOLOMON UPSHAW, Cape Neddick, ME, pro se.

CHRISTOPHER KEITH WIMBUSH, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN,

JR., FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR. 

______________________ 
2 UPSHAW v. US

Before PROST, Chief Judge, SCHALL, and WALLACH,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Plaintiff-Appellant Solomon Upshaw appeals the July 

19, 2014, final order by the United States Court of Federal Claims (‘Claims Court”) dismissing his Amended Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Upshaw 

v. United States, No. 14-569C (Ct. Cl. Nov. 19, 2014) 

(Resp’t’s App. (“R.A.”) 34–39) (“Final Order”). For the 

reasons set forth below, this court affirms.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Upshaw filed his Complaint with the Claims 

Court on July 7, 2014. The Complaint originally listed 

WMB Construction, Inc., William Brandon, Jr., and Kara 

L. Brandon as the defendants while listing Mr. Upshaw 

and U Transport Corporation as the plaintiffs. The 

Government filed a motion to dismiss on September 19, 

2014, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to hear Mr. 

Upshaw’s Complaint because the Claims Court only has 

jurisdiction to hear claims against the United States. See 

Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App’x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 

2014) (holding “[t]he Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, limits 

the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims to claims 

for money damages against the United States”). 

On September 19, 2014, the Claims Court advised Mr. 

Upshaw of his pleading’s defects relating to the parties 

listed and the jurisdictional bounds of the court. Mr. 

Upshaw filed an Amended Complaint on September 29, 

2014, which listed the United States as the only defendant and himself as the only plaintiff. In his Amended 

Complaint, Mr. Upshaw alleged a broker with “authority” 

from the “Interstate Commerce Commission” stole his 

tractor and trailer from a “rented parking space” and then 

“sold it to private parties.” R.A. 35. On October 8, 2014, 

the Government renewed its motion to dismiss, arguing 
UPSHAW v. US 3

Mr. Upshaw failed to state a claim for which relief could 

be granted and the court lacked jurisdiction to hear his 

Complaint. The Claims Court agreed and dismissed the 

Complaint on November 19, 2014. Mr. Upshaw appeals 

the dismissal to this court. This court has jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) (2012).

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review and Jurisdiction

This court “review[s] de novo whether the Claims 

Court possessed jurisdiction.” Estes Express Lines v. 

United States, 739 F.3d 689, 692 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing 

Maher v. United States, 314 F.3d 600, 603 (Fed. Cir.

2002)). As plaintiff, Mr. Upshaw “bears the burden of 

establishing subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (citing Reynolds v. Army & Air 

Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). 

When reviewing a Claims Court’s “motion to dismiss for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court accepts as 

true all uncontroverted factual allegations in the complaint, and construes them in the light most favorable to 

the plaintiff.” Id. (citing Cedars–Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573, 1583–84 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).

The jurisdiction of the Claims Court is limited by the 

Tucker Act “to claims for money damages against the 

United States based on sources of substantive law that 

‘can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by 

the Federal Government.’” Trevino, 557 F. App’x at 998

(quoting United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 

290 (2009)). The Claims Court “does not have jurisdiction 

over claims against any party other than the United 

States.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491). Jurisdiction does 

not extend to claims “sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1491(a)(1). Furthermore, jurisdiction does not extend to 

cases involving criminal law, the due process clause, or 

the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause because 

they “do not provide for the payment of monies, even if 
4 UPSHAW v. US

there were a violation.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 

378, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

II. The Claims Court Properly Found It Lacked 

Jurisdiction 

When liberally construing the Amended Complaint in 

favor of Mr. Upshaw,1 it is clear the Complaint makes no 

claim against the United States. Mr. Upshaw alleges a 

broker with authority from the Interstate Commerce 

Commission “deprived” his tractor and trailer from a 

“rented parking space” and sold them to another private 

authority. R.A. 35. Though Mr. Upshaw’s lawsuit is 

nominally against the Government, he alleges no facts 

that actually implicate the Government. Indeed, the only 

difference between Mr. Upshaw’s original Complaint and 

his Amended Complaint is the insertion of the United 

States as a defendant in the captions. 

Even if the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges a 

cause of action against the United States, it cannot form a 

basis for subject-matter jurisdiction because it is not 

based on a cause of action that mandates compensation. 

See Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. at 290. Mr. Upshaw’s claims 

are based on criminal law or tort. The Claims Court does 

not have jurisdiction over such claims. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1491(a)(1); Joshua, 17 F.3d at 379. Accordingly, his 

claim must fail. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the 

Claims Court is

AFFIRMED

1 A pro se complaint must be “liberally construed” 

and held to a “less stringent standard[] than formal 

pleadings.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). 

 
UPSHAW v. US 5

COSTS

No Costs.