NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SOMONA LOFTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2023-1181

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:22-cv-01335-AOB, Judge Armando O. Bonilla.

______________________ 

Decided: June 08, 2023

______________________ 

SOMONA MARIE LOFTON, Fairfield, CA, pro se.

 CURTIS CLARENCE PETT, Tax Division, United States 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRUCE R. ELLISEN, DAVID A.

HUBBERT. 

______________________ 

Before REYNA, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Case: 23-1181 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 06/08/2023
2 LOFTON v. US

Ms. Lofton appeals two orders issued by the United 

States Court of Federal Claims that dismissed her claims 

against California state and local agencies along with her 

tax refund case against the United States. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

I 

On September 14, 2022, Ms. Lofton filed a complaint 

with the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims 

Court”) alleging that employees of the State of California’s 

Health and Human Services Agency and Department of Social Services harassed her and withheld benefits. SAppx 2, 

11.1 The Claims Court sua sponte dismissed Ms. Lofton’s 

claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over claims 

against state and local agencies, citing its limited jurisdiction to hear cases against the United States Government. 

SAppx 2 (citing Jones v. United States, 104. Fed. Cl. 92, 98 

(2012); Souders v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth., 497 F.3d 1303, 

1307–08 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Fanning, Phillips & Molnar v. 

West, 160 F.3d 717, 720 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). 

Ms. Lofton’s complaint also brought a tax refund case 

against the United States Government. SAppx 4. That 

claim centers around a 2021 federal income tax refund, 

which the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) refused to process. Id. Ms. Lofton filed her tax refund suit on September 

14, 2022, which was, by the Claims Court’s calculation, 3 

months and 27 days after purportedly filing her 2021 Form 

1040-X—not six months, which is required under 26 U.S.C. 

§ 6532(a). SAppx 5. In alleging the IRS has not yet processed her refund, Ms. Lofton conceded that the IRS did not 

issue a decision prior to her filing suit. Id. The Claims 

Court ultimately dismissed the case without prejudice on 

November 18, 2022, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

1 “SAppx” refers to the Government’s supplemental 

appendix.

Case: 23-1181 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 06/08/2023
LOFTON v. US 3

SAppx 5–6 (citing Weston v. United States, No. 2022-1179, 

2022 WL 1097361, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2022) (“[T]he 

failure to file a timely complaint under § 6532(a)(1) deprives the [Court of Federal Claims] of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (citing cases); e.g., Gaynor v. United States, 150 

Fed. Cl. 519, 538 (2020) (dismissing tax refund claims for 

lack of jurisdiction because the “requisite waiting period 

had not yet elapsed” when plaintiff filed the initial complaint). In doing so, the court noted that “[t]he irony is not 

lost on the Court that this Order of Dismissal is being issued on the precise date that Ms. Lofton’s statutory sixmonth waiting period expires.” SAppx 4–6. The Claims 

Court held that Ms. Lofton could refile her tax refund case 

as early as the date the court’s order issued. SAppx 6. 

Judgment granting the Government’s motion to dismiss 

was filed on November 22, 2022. SAppx 9. Ms. Lofton did 

not refile her tax refund claim.2 

II

This court reviews de novo a decision by the Claims 

Court to dismiss a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Diversified Grp. Inc. v. United States, 841 F.3d 975, 

980 (Fed. Cir. 2016). A party invoking the jurisdiction of 

the Claims Court has the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Fid. & Guar. Ins. 

Underwriters, Inc. v. United States, 805 F.3d 1082, 1087 

(Fed. Cir. 2015). Although pro se plaintiffs’ complaints are 

interpreted liberally, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 

2 Separately before this court was another appeal 

filed by Ms. Lofton, Lofton v. United States, No. 23-1175, 

2023 WL 3220932 (Fed. Cir. May 2023). In the case underlying that appeal, the Claims Court dismissed her claims 

for lack of jurisdiction, which sought an award of two million dollars and made various allegations against courts 

across the country. The Claims Court’s dismissal was affirmed.

Case: 23-1181 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 06/08/2023
4 LOFTON v. US

106 (1976), Ms. Lofton still bears the burden of establishing 

the Claims Court’s jurisdiction over her claims, see Brandt 

v. United States, 710 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see 

also Roman v. United States, 61 F.4th 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 

2023). 

The Claims Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and 

can resolve only those claims for which the United States 

has waived sovereign immunity. United States. v. Testan, 

424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976). The Tucker Act is one such 

waiver, but it does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages. United 

States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212, 216 (1983); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1491(a)(1). Ms. Lofton must still demonstrate that the 

source of substantive law she relies on can be fairly interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damages sustained. Id. at 216–17 (citing

Testan, 424 U.S. at 398–400. 

Federal courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists. Jones, 

104 Fed. Cl. at 95. The Claims Court is not authorized to 

hear claims against defendants other than the United 

States Government under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1491(a)(1). See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 

587–89 (1941); Souders, 497 F.3d at 1307 (“Claims founded 

on state law are also outside the scope of the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.”). Nor is the Claims 

Court authorized to hear tort or criminal claims. Souders, 

497 F.3d at 1307; see also Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 

378, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“The court has no jurisdiction to 

adjudicate any claims whatsoever under the federal criminal code and the due process and equal protection clauses 

of the Fifth Amendment do not provide for the payment of 

monies, even if there were a violation.”). 

The Claims Court correctly found that Ms. Lofton’s 

state and local agency claims fell outside of its subject matter jurisdiction, as those entities are not the United States

Case: 23-1181 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 06/08/2023
LOFTON v. US 5

and these claims are not against the Federal Government. 

Souders, 497 F.3d at 1308; see also LeBlanc v. United 

States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 

As for Ms. Lofton’s tax refund claim, at the time she

filed her complaint with the Claims Court, the statutory 

waiting period for her taxpayer suit had not expired. 

SAppx 5. Under 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a), a taxpayer cannot file 

for a tax refund until six months after the filing date of the 

claim with the IRS, as provided by 26 U.S.C. § 6532(a). The 

Claims Court properly assessed jurisdiction at the time Ms. 

Lofton’s complaint was filed and found that Ms. Lofton had 

not waited until the end of the six-month statutory period 

before filing suit in the Claims Court. SAppx 4–5. Thus, 

the Claims Court properly dismissed the case without prejudice on November 18, 2022. SAppx 4–6. The Claims 

Court found that Ms. Lofton could refile her tax refund 

case. SAppx 6.3 Accordingly, we find that both the Claims 

Court and this court lack jurisdiction over Ms. Lofton’s tax 

refund claim.

Finally, Ms. Lofton’s reply brief appears to raise new 

allegations against additional state employees. Appellant’s Reply Br. 1–5. To the extent this raises a new issue, 

it is deemed waived. Novosteel SA v. United States, 284 

F.3d 1261, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2002). If it relates back to either 

Ms. Lofton’s tax refund claim or agency claims, it is similarly outside of the court’s jurisdiction for the reasons described above. 

3 Appellee informs this court that the IRS has since 

issued Ms. Lofton the refund she requested, effectively rendering this suit moot. Appellee’s Br. 4 n.2. Ms. Lofton’s 

reply brief does not refute this development. We leave this 

issue, and whether it renders her suit moot, for the Claims 

Court to decide should Ms. Lofton refile her tax refund 

case.

Case: 23-1181 Document: 21 Page: 5 Filed: 06/08/2023
6 LOFTON v. US

III

We have considered Ms. Lofton’s other arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. We affirm the Court of Federal 

Claims’ dismissal of both Ms. Lofton’s claim against California state and local agencies and her tax refund claim. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 23-1181 Document: 21 Page: 6 Filed: 06/08/2023