NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

GREGORY STELLA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2012-5116 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in case no. 11-CV-233, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink. 

__________________________ 

Decided: November 7, 2012 

__________________________ 

GREGORY STELLA, of Brooklyn, New York, pro se. 

JOHN S. GROAT, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. With 

him on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and 

MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., Assistant Director. 

__________________________ 
STELLA v. US 2

Before DYK, PROST, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Stella (“Stella”) appeals from the order of the 

Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack 

of jurisdiction. See Stella v. United States, No. 12-233C 

(Fed. Cl. June 21, 2012). We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Stella filed this complaint with the Court of Federal 

Claims in April 2012, seeking at least $500,000 in damages from the United States “due to the fact of severe Post 

Traumatic Stress Disorder, which ... came from [his] 

situation of pain and suffering.” Appellee’s App. 4. In an 

accompanying handwritten document, Stella recounted 

various incidents that have taken place in his life since 

1988. Several of these incidents involved alleged attempts 

to read his thoughts, intercept his communications, 

implant images in his mind, and otherwise interfere with 

his mental well-being. Stella alleged that a wide range of 

individuals and organizations were responsible for these 

efforts, including his neighbors, the Mafia, bank employees, and various local and federal law enforcement agencies. 

The United States did not answer. The court, acting 

on its own initiative, dismissed the complaint for lack of 

jurisdiction. The court noted that its jurisdiction under 

the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (2006), is limited to 

certain types of claims against the United States. The 

court found that Stella had failed to allege any wrongdoing on the part of the United States or its agents that lay 

within the court’s power to remedy. Stella, No. 12-233C, 

slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cl. June 21, 2012). 

Stella timely appealed to this Court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). 
3 STELLA v. US

DISCUSSION

“We ... review de novo the Court of Federal Claims’s 

dismissal of a claim for lack of jurisdiction.” Doe v. United 

States, 463 F.3d 1314, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations 

omitted). 

Under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims 

has jurisdiction over “any claim against the United States 

founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or 

upon any express or implied contract with the United 

States, or for ... damages in cases not sounding in tort.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (2006). The statute places three 

clear limitations on the court’s jurisdiction: a claim must 

be “against the United States,” see Hassan v. United 

States, 41 Fed. Cl. 149, 150 (1998), it must be “founded ... 

upon” some “separate source of substantive law that 

creates the right to money damages,” Fisher v. United 

States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations 

omitted), and it must “not sound in tort,” see Trauma 

Serv. Grp. v. United States, 104 F.3d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 

1997). 

As the Court of Federal Claims correctly noted, most 

of the individuals and organizations against whom Stella 

has complained are not federal officials or agencies. The 

Court of Federal Claims cannot hear claims against these 

parties. To the extent that Stella has alleged that various 

federal officials and agencies contributed to his condition, 

either directly or by failing to protect him, the court 

correctly observed that these appear to be tort claims, 

which the court is similarly barred from hearing. The 

court can only hear claims against these federal officials 

or agencies if they are based on a “separate source of 

substantive law that creates the right to money damages,” 

Fisher, 402 F.3d at 1172. Stella has not identified any 
STELLA v. US 4

such source of law, and this court has been unable to 

identify one on its own. As such, none of Stella’s claims lie 

within the Court of Federal Claims’s Tucker Act jurisdiction. 

On appeal, Stella complains that the Court of Federal 

Claims did not grant him discovery against the United 

States – that is, that it refused to “subpoena a doctor and 

a[n] affiliate from the [Department of Defense]” or to “ask 

any questions.” Appellant’s Informal Br. 1. Stella has not 

alleged that any of the facts that he hopes to uncover, 

however, would cure the jurisdictional defect that prevents the court from hearing his claims. 

For these reasons, we affirm the Court of Federal 

Claims’s dismissal of Stella’s claim. 

COSTS

 No costs.