Court Opinion

ID: 9909823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 15:00:55.011539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:10.425726
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1797    Document: 13     Page: 1   Filed: 12/14/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

   LOUIS A. BANKS, Individually and on behalf of
                 D.B., a minor,
                Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2023-1797
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:22-cv-01334-ZNS, Judge Zachary N. Somers.
                  ______________________

                      ON MOTION
                  ______________________

 PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
     Louis A. Banks submits a motion to “hear case before
 the same merits panel of judges as prior related case,” and
 submits his informal brief, ECF No. 11-2. Having consid-
 ered Mr. Banks’ submissions, the court summarily affirms.
     Mr. Banks brought this suit in the United States Court
 of Federal Claims. Stemming from an incident between a
Case: 23-1797     Document: 13      Page: 2     Filed: 12/14/2023

 2                                                  BANKS v. US

 police officer and Mr. Banks and his son that occurred in
 the D.C. Public Schools, Mr. Banks’ complaint appears to
 allege a conspiracy involving the United States that vio-
 lated his civil rights and rights under the First, Fourth,
 Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Dkt. No. 6 at 2. On
 March 28, 2023, the United States Court of Federal Claims
 granted the United States’ motion to dismiss for lack of ju-
 risdiction. This appeal followed.
     Summary disposition is appropriate here because there
 is no “substantial question regarding the outcome” of the
 appeal. Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.
 Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.
 § 1491, limits the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal
 Claims to claims for money damages against the United
 States based on sources of substantive law that “can fairly
 be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal
 Government.” United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S.
 287, 290 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here,
 Mr. Banks clearly failed to assert such a claim.
     The court was clearly correct that Mr. Banks could not
 sue in that court based on alleged violations of the First
 Amendment, United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 887
 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the Fourth Amendment, Brown v. United
 States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Due Process
 Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Smith v. United States,
 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013), or the Fourteenth
 Amendment to the Constitution, LeBlanc v. United States,
 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Nothing in those pro-
 visions mandates compensation by the United States.
     The Court of Federal Claims was also clearly correct
 that it lacked jurisdiction to the extent that Mr. Banks was
 asserting a federal civil rights violation as this claim is out-
 side of its jurisdiction and cannot fairly be read to be based
 on a money-mandating obligation on the United States
Case: 23-1797    Document: 13      Page: 3     Filed: 12/14/2023

 BANKS v. US                                                 3

 enforceable under the Tucker Act. See Drake v. United
 States, 792 F. App’x 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citations
 omitted). *
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
      (1) The Court of Federal Claims’ judgment is summar-
 ily affirmed.
     (2) All pending motions are denied as moot.
     (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                               FOR THE COURT

 December 14, 2023
      Date

     *   Mr. Banks’ filings appear to seek review of a case
 brought in the United States District Court for the District
 of Columbia, No. 1:23-cv-01028, alleging civil rights viola-
 tions. That case is outside of this court’s jurisdiction. See
 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). Because Mr. Banks has already ap-
 pealed that case to the appropriate regional court of ap-
 peals, there is no need for us to consider transfer.