Court Opinion

ID: 9882140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 15:01:28.390902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:52.001767
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1776   Document: 15     Page: 1    Filed: 10/05/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                   CEDRIC GREENE,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                   UNITED STATES,
                   Defendant-Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2023-1776
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:22-cv-01779-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: October 5, 2023
                 ______________________

    CEDRIC GREENE, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

     KELLY GEDDES, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________

    Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1776     Document: 15      Page: 2    Filed: 10/05/2023

 2                                                GREENE v. US

 PER CURIAM.
      Cedric Greene appeals a decision from the United
 States Court of Federal Claims dismissing for lack of sub-
 ject matter jurisdiction his claims to reinstate his social se-
 curity benefits and for backpay. We affirm.
                         BACKGROUND
     Mr. Greene filed a complaint before the United States
 Court of Federal Claims (“Court of Federal Claims”), alleg-
 ing that his social security benefits were “stripped in an
 unlawful fashion.” Appx2. 1 As relief, Mr. Greene re-
 quested the reinstatement of his social security benefits
 “plus back pay from the date that his benefits [were] dis-
 continued in an unjust manner.” Appx3.
     The government moved to dismiss Mr. Greene’s com-
 plaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule
 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims. Appx4.
 In response, Mr. Greene argued that the Tucker Act, 28
 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), permits the Court of Federal Claims to
 exercise jurisdiction over his social security benefits
 claims. Appx7.
     The Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s
 motion, concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
 over Mr. Greene’s claims and requested relief. Appx7–8.
    Mr. Greene appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28
 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
                    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    This court reviews de novo a decision by the Court of
 Federal Claims to dismiss a case for lack of subject matter

     1  “Appx” refers to the appendix accompanying the
 government’s responding brief.
Case: 23-1776    Document: 15      Page: 3    Filed: 10/05/2023

 GREENE v. US                                               3

 jurisdiction. See Diversified Grp. Inc. v. United States, 841
 F.3d 975, 980 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
                         DISCUSSION
     We affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ determination
 that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Greene’s
 claim to reinstate his social security benefits and for back-
 pay on the same.
     A party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court of Fed-
 eral Claims has the burden of establishing jurisdiction is
 proper. See Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. United
 States, 805 F.3d 1082, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Court of
 Federal Claims’ jurisdiction is limited, largely established
 by the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491. See United States v.
 Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 397–99 (1976). The Tucker Act gives
 the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over “any claim
 against the United States founded either upon the Consti-
 tution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an exec-
 utive 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). But the Tucker Act itself does not create a
 substantive cause of action, so a plaintiff must identify a
 separate contract, regulation, statute, or Constitutional
 provision, which, if violated, provides for a claim for money
 damages against the United States. See Fisher v. United
 States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see
 also Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin.,
 525 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
     Neither Mr. Greene’s complaint nor his informal brief
 identifies any contract, regulation, statute, or Constitu-
 tional provision outside the Tucker Act that conveys juris-
 diction to the Court of Federal Claims. See Appellant
 Informal Br. 1–3; Appx 1–3. Even construing Mr. Greene’s
 complaint in the most favorable light, he solely challenges
 a decision by the Social Security Administration relating to
 his social security benefits. Appx1. But this court has held
Case: 23-1776     Document: 15       Page: 4   Filed: 10/05/2023

 4                                                GREENE v. US

 that the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction under the
 Tucker Act does not extend to claims, like Mr. Greene’s, for
 social security benefits. See, e.g., Marcus v. United States,
 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Mr. Greene has
 therefore failed to carry his burden to establish that the
 Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction over his social secu-
 rity benefits claim is proper.
     We note that there is a procedural process for challeng-
 ing overpayments and underpayments of social security
 benefits before the Social Security Administration. See 42
 U.S.C. § 404 (outlining procedure). The Social Security Act
 confers exclusive jurisdiction for review of the Social Secu-
 rity Administration’s decisions, including those related to
 overpayment and underpayment, to the district court in
 the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. 42 U.S.C.
 § 405(g)–(h). Consequently, the record indicates that the
 United States District Court for the Central District of Cal-
 ifornia has exclusive jurisdiction over Mr. Greene’s chal-
 lenge of the Social Security Administration’s decision. 2
     For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Greene has failed to
 carry his burden of establishing that the Court of Federal
 Claims had jurisdiction over his social security benefits
 claim. The Court of Federal Claims thus properly con-
 cluded that it had no jurisdiction over Mr. Greene’s claim.
                         CONCLUSION
    We affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of Mr.
 Greene’s complaint.
                         AFFIRMED
                             COSTS
 No costs.

     2   Mr. Greene stated that his residence is in Los An-
 geles, California. Appx2.