Court Opinion

ID: 9395155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 14:00:43.349584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:06.130582
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2138    Document: 20      Page: 1    Filed: 05/17/2023

            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                    MATTIE T. LOMAX
                     Plaintiff-Appellant

                              v.

                     UNITED STATES,
                     Defendant-Appellee
                   ______________________

                         2022-2138
                   ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:22-cv-00770-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.
                  ______________________

                       ON MOTION
                   ______________________

 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
     Mattie T. Lomax appeals from the judgment of the
 United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing her com-
 plaint for lack of jurisdiction. Before the court are Ms. Lo-
 max’s opposed motion for entry of default judgment and the
 government’s opposed motion for summary affirmance. We
 grant the government’s motion and affirm.
Case: 22-2138    Document: 20      Page: 2    Filed: 05/17/2023

 2                                                LOMAX   v. US

      Ms. Lomax filed the underlying complaint at the Court
 of Federal Claims naming the State of Florida as the de-
 fendant. Her complaint sought a declaration that certain
 documents relating to her criminal record in Florida were
 invalid; an injunction against the state of Florida and its
 officers and agents; and $20,000,000 in damages plus liti-
 gation costs. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for
 lack of jurisdiction and certified under 28 U.S.C.
 § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be in good faith.
      Summary affirmance is appropriate here because the
 merits of the parties’ positions are so clear “that no sub-
 stantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal ex-
 ists,” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir.
 1994). The Court of Federal Claims is a federal court of
 limited jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1491. Relevant here, it
 may only review monetary claims against the United
 States. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588
 (1941) (holding that the Court of Federal Claims’ “jurisdic-
 tion is confined to the rendition of money judgments in
 suits brought for that relief against the United States”).
 Thus, the Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct in
 holding that it lacked jurisdiction over this case.
     We have considered Ms. Lomax’s arguments in her in-
 formal opening brief and her response to the motion for
 summary affirmance and do not find them persuasive. The
 Court of Federal Claims clearly lacks jurisdiction over
 claims for damages under § 1983. Shelden v. United
 States, 742 F. App’x 496, 501–02 (Fed. Cir. 2018); cf. Can-
 non v. Univ. of Chi., 441 U.S. 677, 701 n.27 (1979) (“[Sec-
 tion] 1983 is assuredly not available for suits against the
 United States[.]”). The Court of Federal Claims was clearly
 correct that it lacked jurisdiction over Ms. Lomax’s collat-
 eral attacks on decisions of state and federal courts with
 respect to criminal matters, Jones v. United States, 440 F.
 App’x 916, 918 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (collecting cases), or to re-
 view decisions by district courts or courts of appeals gener-
 ally, see Boise Cascade Corp. v. United States, 296 F.3d
Case: 22-2138    Document: 20     Page: 3     Filed: 05/17/2023

 LOMAX   v. US                                              3

 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court was likewise clearly
 correct that it lacked jurisdiction over claims concerning
 defamation, discrimination, and infliction of emotional
 stress that sound in tort. See Jentoft v. United States, 450
 F.3d 1342, 1349–50 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Finally, neither the
 Eleventh Amendment nor 18 U.S.C. § 242, cited in Ms. Lo-
 max’s papers, is a source of law that can be fairly inter-
 preted as creating a right to money damages against the
 United States that would give the court jurisdiction under
 the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted.
 The Court of Federal Claims’ judgment is summarily af-
 firmed.
    (2) The motion for default judgment is denied.
    (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                    FOR THE COURT

 May 17, 2023                       /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
    Date                            Peter R. Marksteiner
                                    Clerk of Court