NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

WALTER L. ALLEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2020-1578

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:19-cv-01304-VJW, Senior Judge Victor J. Wolski.

______________________

Decided: August 5, 2020

______________________

WALTER L. ALLEN, Brooklyn, NY, pro se. 

 SOSUN BAE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by ETHAN P.

DAVIS, TARA K. HOGAN, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.

 ______________________

Before O’MALLEY, BRYSON, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

Case: 20-1578 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 08/05/2020
2 ALLEN v. UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM.

The Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) has 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). Absent 

from this grant of jurisdiction are claims based on personal 

grievances against post office employees. Walter L. Allen 

(“Allen”) appeals a decision of the Claims Court dismissing

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his complaint alleging such a grievance. Allen v. United States, No. 19-1304C, 

2020 WL 975438 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 28, 2020). We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Allen filed his complaint on August 27, 2019, alleging

that on January 2, 2019, a United States Postal Service 

(“USPS”) employee in Brooklyn, New York refused to accept Allen’s letters for mailing. Allen, 2020 WL 975438, 

at *1. The employee was apparently the only worker at the 

time and was therefore unable to weigh the letters. J.A. 7. 

After a “minor verbal dispute,” Allen took the letters to another post office. Id. Within 30 minutes of the initial incident, Allen’s mail was accepted by the second post office. 

Id. Allen subsequently filed a grievance with USPS headquarters, requesting “900 zillion” dollars for this unpleasant interaction. Allen, 2020 WL 975438, at *1. The USPS 

apologized to Allen, but did not pay him the requested 

amount. Id. Allen then filed a complaint against the 

United States in the Claims Court, increasing his monetary demand to “one hundred million zillion dollars.” Id. 

He also sought termination of the employee involved in the 

incident. Id. 

The government filed a motion to dismiss Allen’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Allen did 

Case: 20-1578 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 08/05/2020
ALLEN v. UNITED STATES 3

not respond to the motion. Even after accepting all factual 

allegations as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in 

the light most favorable to Allen, and liberally construing 

Allen’s filings, the Claims Court found that it did not have 

subject matter jurisdiction. Allen, 2020 WL 975438, at * 2. 

The court dismissed Allen’s complaint pursuant to Rule

12(b)(1) of the Rule of the Court of Federal Claims 

(“RCFC”). Id. 

Allen timely filed a notice of appeal. Allen also filed 

two motions for other relief in June 2020 (ECF Nos. 13 and 

14), which we construe as motions to file supplemental 

briefing in support of his appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). 

DISCUSSION

We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1). Maher v. United States, 

314 F.3d 600, 603 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In ruling on a motion 

to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court 

must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true 

and construe them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Estes Express Lines v. United States, 739 

F.3d 689, 692 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The filings of pro se parties, 

moreover, should be liberally construed and held to less 

stringent standards than professionally drafted pleadings. 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 

The Claims Court derives its jurisdiction from the 

Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, which waives sovereign immunity for certain monetary claims against the federal 

government. In order to establish jurisdiction under the 

Tucker Act, the plaintiff must identify a constitutional provision, federal statute, executive agency regulation, or an 

express or implied contract with the United States that creates a right to money damages. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). 

Allen cannot identify any provision of federal law that entitles him to monetary damages against the federal government stemming from his allegedly unpleasant encounter 

Case: 20-1578 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 08/05/2020
4 ALLEN v. UNITED STATES

with the postal officer worker or the temporary refusal of 

his mail. Nor does Allen claim to have been party to, or in 

privity with, an express or implied contract with the 

United States. 

Few amongst us have been spared the indignity of an 

unpleasant encounter with a customer service representative, government or private. But fewer still would take the 

path Allen chose to take here. As the Claims Court has 

informed Allen six times over, it is a court of limited subject 

matter jurisdiction.1 Allen must identify a statutory or 

contractual right under the Tucker Act in order to bring a 

case in that court. He has not done so here.2 Accordingly,

1 Allen is no stranger to the Claims Court. In 2019, 

Allen filed ten complaints with that court within a threemonth period. Allen v. United States, 145 Fed. Cl. 390, 

397–98 (Fed. Cl. 2019) (collecting cases). Allen also appears to favor seeking damages in amounts such as “900 

trillion dollars,” and “one hundred million zillion dollars.” 

Id. at 392. The Claims Court has dismissed all ten cases, 

at least six for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 

397–398. Not surprisingly, the Claims Court has imposed 

sanctions on Allen, barring him from filing any future complaints without first obtaining leave to file from the Chief 

Judge of the court. Id. 

2 To the extent Allen suggests that he has filed a bid 

protest case in his complaint, invoking the Claims Court’s 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b), that argument is 

meritless. Such jurisdiction only arises “in connection with 

a procurement or a proposed procurement.” 28 U.S.C. 

§1491(b). As a procurement pertains to the government’s 

“process of acquiring property or services,” this action cannot be a bid protest. Distributed Sols., Inc. v. United States, 

539 F.3d 1340, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

Case: 20-1578 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 08/05/2020
ALLEN v. UNITED STATES 5

we conclude that the Claims Court correctly determined 

that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION

Because the Claims Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we affirm. We dismiss as moot Allen’s June 2020 

motions for other relief. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 20-1578 Document: 16 Page: 5 Filed: 08/05/2020