Court Opinion

ID: 9379742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 15:00:46.661192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:27.365503
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2292    Document: 21    Page: 1   Filed: 03/16/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                JUSTIN PAUL DREILING,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2022-2292
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:22-cv-00223-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: March 16, 2023
                 ______________________

    JUSTIN PAUL DREILING, Lumber Bridge, NC, pro se.

     ELIZABETH ANNE SPECK, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
 sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY,
 DOUGLAS K. MICKLE; SETH I. HELLER, Office of the Chief
 Counsel, United States Food and Drug Administration, Sil-
 ver Spring, MD.
                 ______________________
Case: 22-2292     Document: 21     Page: 2    Filed: 03/16/2023

 2                                              DREILING   v. US

     Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and HUGHES, Circuit
                           Judges.
 MOORE, Chief Judge.
      Staff Sergeant Justin Paul Dreiling appeals a decision
 of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing for
 lack of jurisdiction his claim for an injunction directing the
 Food and Drug Administration to disclose information
 about the COVID-19 vaccines. For the following reasons,
 we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
      SSG Dreiling filed a claim in the Court of Federal
 Claims alleging the FDA was violating 21 C.F.R.
 § 601.51(e) by not releasing accurate and complete infor-
 mation on the COVID-19 vaccines. Appx. 5–7. SSG Dreil-
 ing alleged he could not make a well-informed decision
 about whether to be vaccinated without the information
 and thus remained unvaccinated pending his requests for
 more complete disclosures. Id. He further alleged this put
 him at risk of involuntary separation and caused him ir-
 reparable harm. Id. SSG Dreiling requested the Court of
 Federal Claims grant him injunctive relief by ordering the
 FDA to immediately release the required data. Appx. 8.
 The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject mat-
 ter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Appx. 9–17.
 The Court of Federal Claims granted the motion to dismiss
 for lack of jurisdiction because 21 C.F.R. § 601.51(e) is not
 money mandating. Appx. 2–3. SSG Dreiling appeals. We
 have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
                         DISCUSSION
     The Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction under the
 Tucker Act is limited to cases involving a money-mandat-
 ing statute or agency regulation. See 28 U.S.C.
 § 1491(a)(1); United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 2–3 (1969);
 Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir.
 2005) (en banc). We review decisions to dismiss a
Case: 22-2292       Document: 21    Page: 3     Filed: 03/16/2023

 DREILING   v. US                                              3

 complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo.
 Boaz Hous. Auth. v. United States, 994 F.3d 1359, 1364
 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
     SSG Dreiling does not allege 21 C.F.R. § 601.51(e) is
 money mandating but argues the Court of Federal Claims’
 jurisdiction is not limited to monetary claims. SSG Dreil-
 ing argues the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)
 gives the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over equita-
 ble claims in addition to monetary claims. This argument
 is based on SSG Dreiling’s belief that the Supreme Court
 has, for nearly a century and a half, misunderstood its own
 precedent in United States v. Jones, 131 U.S. 1 (1889) and
 wrongly interpreted the Court of Federal Claims jurisdic-
 tional statute.
     The Supreme Court has repeatedly held the Court of
 Federal Claims’ jurisdiction is limited to monetary claims
 against the government. See, e.g., Jones, 131 U.S. at 19;
 King, 395 U.S. at 2–3; United States v. Testan, 424 U.S.
 392, 400–02 (1976); United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206,
 216–17 (1983). SSG Dreiling argues that Jones does not
 hold that the court lacks jurisdiction over equitable claims
 but only that it lacks jurisdiction to enforce the relief of eq-
 uitable claims. This argument is unavailing. Jones ex-
 pressly addressed whether the jurisdictional statute
 “authorize[d] suits of the kind like the present, which are
 brought, not for the recovery of money, but for equitable
 relief.” Jones, 131 U.S. at 14. It answered that question in
 the negative. Id. at 18–20. Lest there was any doubt, the
 Supreme Court’s subsequent case law has made clear that
 the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction has always “been
 limited to money claims against the United States Govern-
 ment” and does not include claims for equitable relief.
 King, 395 U.S. at 2–3.
    The Supreme Court’s interpretation is binding. The
 Court of Federal Claims therefore did not err in holding it
Case: 22-2292   Document: 21      Page: 4   Filed: 03/16/2023

 4                                           DREILING   v. US

 lacked jurisdiction to hear SSG Dreiling’s claim. We af-
 firm.
                      AFFIRMED
                          COSTS
 No costs.