NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-5021 VOLODYMYR NAUMENKO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

Volodymyr Naumenko , of North Hollywood, California, pro se. Anna Bondurant Eley , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States D epartment of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendantappellee. With her on the brief were Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Steven Gillingham , Assistant Director. Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims Judge Lawrence M. BaskirNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-5021 VOLODYMYR NAUMENKO, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 07-CV-577, Judge Lawrence M. Baskir.

__________________ _________ DECIDED: May 12, 2008

__________________ _________ Before MICHEL, Chief Judge , CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge , and GAJARSA, Circuit Judge

. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff-Appellant Volodymyr Naumenko appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“CFC”) dismissing his complaint for lack of subject ma tter jurisdiction. Because Mr. Naumenko is unable to show t hat his claims fall wit hin the statutorily defined jurisdiction of the CFC, we affirm

. This court reviews a decision of the CFC dismissing a complaint for lack of jurisdiction without deference. Sanders v. United States , 252 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the CFC has jurisdictionover his complaint. Id. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). Under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, the CFC is a court of limited jurisdiction. The Tucker Act provides in pertinent part: The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congre ss or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidat ed damages in cases not sounding in tort. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). It is well-established that “[t]he Tucker Act it self does not create a substantive cause of action; in order to come within the jurisdictional reach and the [sovereign immunity] waiver of the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a separate source of substantive law that creates the right to money damages.” Fish er v. United States , 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (F ed. Cir. 2005) (en banc ) (citing United St ates v. Mitchell , 463 U.S. 206, 216 (1983). In this case, Mr. Naumenko seeks damages fo r, inter alia, constructive wrongful termination of employment, employment discr imination, fraud, battery, a violation of California labor law, intent ional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, premises liability, strict liability for ultr ahazardous activity, and stolen property. The caption of Mr. Naumenko’s complaint filed in the CFC names as Defendants “Technical Trouble Shooting, Anesko Inc., et al.” J.A. at 1. After reviewing Mr. Naumenko’s complaint, the trial judge issued an order to show cause wh y the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the show cause order, the trial judge noted that Mr. Naumenko’s complaint appears to seek damages from privat e parties, not the United States, and that 28 U.S.C. § 1491 only grants the CFC jurisdiction over suits against the

2008-5021 2United States. In his response to the show cause order, Mr. Naum enko stated that he has paid Social Security and Medicare taxes, and that he and his family are in the United States pursuant to a green card. Mr. Naumenko also mentioned patent law and suggested the existence of an express or implied contra ct with the United States. Lastly, Mr. Naumenko appeared to suggest that his claims are directed against private parties, stating that “the in surance company[ie]s falcificate [sic] and lie on all of documents and stat[e]ments, this should be looked at by the feder al jurisdiction.” J.A. at
11. After reviewing Mr. Naumenko’s response to the show cause order, the trial judge dismissed Mr. Naumenko’s complaint for la ck of subject matter ju risdiction. In the order of dismissal, the trial judge explained that Mr. Naumenko “failed . . . to cite to a specific statute, provision of the U.S. Constitution, Execut ive Order, regulation, or any specific express or implied contract with th e United States which entitles him to collect money damages from the Federal Government, as required by the Tucker Act.” J.A. at 16. The trial judge also noted that Mr. N aumenko’s complaint appeared to be directed against private parties, rather than the United States. In his submissions to th is court, Mr. Naumenko does not identify any claim against the United States. Instead, Mr. N aumenko seeks a judgment against several private parties including, inter alia, “Anesko , Technical Trouble Shoot ing . . . Law offices CA Bar, . . . Universal Care Inc, Golden Eagl e Inc, . . . .” Appellant Supp. Memorandum at 2-3. Because Mr. Naumenko has not ident ified any claim against the United States, we agree with the trial judge that the CFC lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Naumenko’s

2008-5021 32008-5021 4 complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the dec ision of the CFC dism issing Mr. Naumenko’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.