NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-5081 

GREGORY D. WALSH, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

Gregory D. Walsh, of Dubuque, Iowa, pro se. 

Steven J. Gillingham, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. 

With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General and Jeanne E. 

Davidson, Director. 

Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims 

Judge George W. Miller 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-5081 

GREGORY D. WALSH, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________________ 

 DECIDED: October 3, 2007 

____________________________ 

Before SCHALL, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and MOORE, Circuit 

Judge. 

PER CURIAM. 

 DECISION 

 Gregory D. Walsh appeals the final decision of the United States Court of 

Federal Claims that dismissed his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Walsh v. United States, No. 06-609C (Fed. Cl. filed February 5, 2007). We affirm. 

 DISCUSSION 

 I. 

 In his complaint filed in the Court of Federal Claims, Mr. Walsh named as 

defendants the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, the United 

States Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, and the United States Department of 

2007-5081 
Health and Human Services. In the complaint, Mr. Walsh alleged a variety of torts and 

criminal acts, not committed by the named defendants, but rather by state officials. 

 Mr. Walsh alleged (i) that he was arrested by local police in Dubuque, Iowa, on 

April 2, 2005; (ii) that he was released on bail on September 6, 2005; (iii) that his case 

was tried before a jury on October 17, 2005; and (iv) that he was acquitted and the 

charges against him dismissed on October 18, 2005. Mr. Walsh also appeared to 

allege in his complaint that state officials were to blame for a severe injury that he 

suffered in 1997. 

 Mr. Walsh asserted in his complaint that the time he spent in the county jail 

constituted a kidnapping by the State of Iowa, and he sought relief against the state for 

what he asserted were pretrial procedural violations, forced labor, and the failure to 

grant his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Mr. Walsh’s complaint did not specify 

damages. However, in court papers subsequently filed, Mr. Walsh stated that he was 

seeking $1 billion under theories of mental anguish, emotional distress, defamation, 

pain and suffering, and punitive damages. 

 On February 5, 2007, the Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s 

motion to dismiss Mr. Walsh’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. 

Walsh has timely appealed from that decision. We have jurisdiction over his appeal 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) (2000). 

II. 

 The Court of Federal Claims did not err in dismissing Mr. Walsh’s complaint for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. To the extent relevant here, the jurisdiction of the 

2007-5081 2
Court of Federal Claims is stated in 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (2000). That statute 

provides in pertinent part as follows: 

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 Congress or any regulation of an executive 

department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United 

States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in 

tort. 

28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (2000). 

The Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Walsh’s suit for two 

separate reasons. First, the Court of Federal Claims only has jurisdiction over claims 

against the United States. Mr. Walsh’s complaint makes it clear that his claim is not 

against the United States, but rather against the State of Iowa and/or the City of 

Dubuque. Second, the Court of Federal Claims only has jurisdiction over claims against 

the United States “not sounding in tort.” Id. Mr. Walsh’s complaint and the papers he 

subsequently filed make it clear that his suit sounds in tort. That is because he alleges 

kidnapping, forced labor, and an apparent physical injury, and because he seeks 

damages for mental anguish, emotional distress, defamation, and pain and suffering. 

Thus, even if Mr. Walsh’s claim was against the United States, the Court of Federal 

Claims still would lack jurisdiction because it is based upon allegations of tort, which the 

court is not authorized to adjudicate. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the final decision of the Court of Federal Claims 

dismissing Mr. Walsh’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed. 

 No costs. 

2007-5081 3