Coversheet Corrected: April 9, 2007 

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-5035 

ANDRE JOEL HOWARD, 

 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

Andre Joel Howard, of Houston, Texas, pro se. 

 

Joan Stentiford, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division 

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

her on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne Davidson, 

Director, and Steven J. Gillingham, Assistant Director. 

Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims 

Judge Emily C. Hewitt 
* Honorable Marvin J. Garbis, Sr. District Judge, United States District Court of 

Maryland, sitting by designation. 

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-5035 

ANDRE JOEL HOWARD, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

___________________________ 

 DECIDED: April 5, 2007 

___________________________ 

Before MAYER, RADER, Circuit Judges, and GARBIS*, Senior District Judge. 

PER CURIAM. 

The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Andre J. Howard's case for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. Howard v. United States, 74 Fed.Cl. 676 (2006) Finding no 

reversible error, this court affirms. 

In reviewing judgments of the Court of Federal Claims, this court reviews 

conclusions of law, such as contract or statutory interpretation, without deference. 

Mass. Bay Transp. Auth. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Kane 

v. United States, 43 F.3d 1446, 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1994). This court reviews findings of 

facts under the “clearly erroneous” standard. City of El Centro v. United States, 922 

F.2d 816, 819 (Fed. Cir. 1990). This court also reviews without deference whether the 
Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed a complaint for failure to state a claim. 

United Pacific Ins. Co. v. United States, 464 F.3d 1325, (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

 In his complaint to this court and the trial court below, Mr. Howard proffers vague 

assertions of violations of 28 U.S.C. § 1916 (2006) and violations of the due process 

and takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In 

particular, Mr. Howard asserts unspecified lack of due process from the Department of 

Justice (DOJ) and improper manipulations of the judicial system by the Unites States 

Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit in support of the DOJ. The trial court found no 

allegations of an actual taking of property without just compensation. Nor does this 

court. Further, Mr. Howard’s attempt to name the Fifth Circuit as a defendant is 

unavailing. The United States is the only proper defendant before the Court of Federal 

Claims. United States v Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (holding relief sought 

against others than the United States must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the 

court). Regarding Mr. Howard’s allegations under 28 U.S.C. § 1916, this code section 

allows seamen, without paying fess or costs, to file suits and appeals concerning their 

wages, salvage, and for enforcement of laws governing their health and safety. 28 

U.S.C. § 1916. Section 1916, however, does not entitle a plaintiff monetary relief 

against the United States. 

 Mr. Howard has not identified any violation of any money-mandating source for 

which the trial court can grant monetary relief. Accordingly, this court affirms. 

2007-5035 2