Court Opinion

ID: 9948911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 15:01:11.984629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:26.226794
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2314   Document: 22     Page: 1   Filed: 03/08/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                 MARK MCCORMICK,
                  Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                   UNITED STATES,
                   Defendant-Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2023-2314
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:23-cv-00539-MHS, Judge Matthew H. Solomson.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: March 8, 2024
                 ______________________

    MARK MCCORMICK, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.

     MATNEY ELIZABETH ROLFE, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
 sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                 ______________________

    Before TARANTO, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit
                       Judges.
Case: 23-2314    Document: 22      Page: 2    Filed: 03/08/2024

 2                                           MCCORMICK v. US

 PER CURIAM.
     Mark McCormick, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint
 against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims.
 Complaint, McCormick v. United States, No. 23-cv-00539
 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 13, 2023), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter “Claims
 Court Docket”]. After staying proceedings to give it time to
 determine whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction over
 the case, the Claims Court concluded that it lacked juris-
 diction and dismissed Mr. McCormick’s complaint and en-
 tered final judgment. McCormick v. United States, No. 23-
 539C, 2023 WL 4311650, at *3 (Fed. Cl. July 3, 2023)
 (Claims Court Decision); Judgment, Claims Court Docket
 (July 10, 2023), ECF No. 10. Mr. McCormick appeals. Be-
 cause we determine that the Claims Court did not have
 subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. McCormick’s com-
 plaint, we affirm the Claims Court’s decision.
                               I
     In his complaint, Mr. McCormick alleged a number of
 injuries suffered by him and his now-deceased brother Mo-
 ses and pointed to several unsuccessful cases he (alone or
 with his brother) previously brought, citing McCormick v.
 Browne, No. 17-cv-00595, 2017 WL 8790950 (S.D. Ohio
 Dec. 27, 2017), aff’d, No. 18-3004, 2018 WL 11327092 (6th
 Cir. Sept. 18, 2018); Order, McCormick v. Dreamy Draw
 Justice Court, No. 22-cv-01446 (D. Ariz. Nov. 10, 2022),
 ECF No. 18; Order, McCormick v. Multi State Lottery As-
 sociation, No. 23-cv-00525 (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2023), ECF
 No. 5; Notices of Voluntary Dismissal, McCormick v.
 Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Divi-
 sion, No. 19-cv-03329 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 9, 2020 and Nov. 20,
 2020), ECF Nos. 219, 225. In the present case, Mr. McCor-
 mick alleged that the United States is liable for actions of
 individuals (some of whom were federal officials) causing
 his lack of success in such cases, characterizing the actions
 as tortious, actionable under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 and 18
 U.S.C. §§ 241–42, and violative of the First and Fourteenth
Case: 23-2314      Document: 22     Page: 3   Filed: 03/08/2024

 MCCORMICK v. US                                             3

 Amendments to the United States Constitution. Com-
 plaint at 1, 3–5, 9, Claims Court Docket (Apr. 13, 2023),
 ECF No. 1. Mr. McCormick also alleged more generally
 that the United States is liable for intentional and negli-
 gent acts committed by Ohio state officials and federal of-
 ficials that caused him to suffer damage to his business,
 person, and property and ultimately resulted in the at-
 tempted killing of him and the death of his brother. Id. at
 5–9. Mr. McCormick sought compensatory damages of $75
 billion and punitive damages. Id. at 1-1.
      The Claims Court dismissed Mr. McCormick’s claims
 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It explained that, to
 the extent that the complaint suggested the assertion of
 claims against individual federal officials or individual
 state officials, the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over
 such claims; and it also explained that it lacked jurisdiction
 over the claims Mr. McCormick asserted against the
 United States—tort claims, state-law claims, statutory
 claims, and particular constitutional claims. Claims Court
 Decision, at *2–3. Mr. McCormick timely filed his appeal
 on August 17, 2023, as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b)(1).
 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
                               II
      We review whether the Claims Court possesses sub-
 ject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Taylor v. United States,
 959 F.3d 1081, 1086 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Biltmore Forest
 Broadcasting FM, Inc. v. United States, 555 F.3d 1375,
 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
     The jurisdiction of the Claims Court is “defined by the
 Tucker Act, which gives the court authority to render judg-
 ment on certain monetary claims against the United
 States.” RadioShack Corp. v. United States, 566 F.3d 1358,
 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)). The
 Tucker Act provides:
Case: 23-2314    Document: 22     Page: 4    Filed: 03/08/2024

 4                                          MCCORMICK v. US

     The United States Court of Federal Claims shall
     have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any
     claim against the United States founded either
     upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or
     any regulation of an executive 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). Importantly, although the Tucker
 Act waives the sovereign immunity of the federal govern-
 ment, it does not itself provide any substantive rights or
 any right of action to obtain monetary relief for wrongs.
 Accordingly, to invoke Claims Court jurisdiction pursuant
 to the Tucker Act, “a plaintiff must identify a right to
 money damages found in the Constitution, a statute or gov-
 ernment regulation, or a contract.” Folden v. United
 States, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see United
 States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216–17 (1983). In other
 words, for claims like those asserted here, a plaintiff, be-
 sides identifying “the source of substantive law he relies
 upon,” must show that the identified source of law “can
 fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the
 [f]ederal [g]overnment for the damages sustained.” Mitch-
 ell, 463 U.S. at 216–17 (quoting United States v. Testan,
 424 U.S. 392, 400 (1976)) (internal quotation marks omit-
 ted). This requirement extends to pro se, as well as lawyer-
 represented, plaintiffs. See Sanders v. United States, 252
 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
     Mr. McCormick’s complaint, if read generously, asserts
 against the United States only tort claims, claims based on
 state law, federal statutory claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–42, and constitutional claims under
Case: 23-2314      Document: 22     Page: 5    Filed: 03/08/2024

 MCCORMICK v. US                                              5

 the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 1 But Mr. McCor-
 mick has not identified any claim within the Tucker Act.
     Tort claims “are clearly outside the limited jurisdic-
 tion” of the Claims Court, and claims “founded on state law
 are also outside the scope of the limited jurisdiction” of the
 Claims Court. Souders v. South Carolina Public Service
 Authority, 497 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see 28
 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (reciting only federal-law sources of
 rights and excluding cases “sounding in tort”); see also
 Rick’s Mushroom Service, Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d
 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“The plain language of the
 Tucker Act excludes from the [Claims Court’s] jurisdiction
 claims sounding in tort.”).
     The Tucker Act also does not cover Mr. McCormick’s
 federal statutory claims. We have repeatedly affirmed
 Claims Court rulings that the Tucker Act does not extend
 to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even aside from the fact
 that § 1983 is limited to persons acting under state or ter-
 ritorial law, see Settles v. U.S. Parole Commission, 429 F.3d
 1098, 1105–06 (D.C. Cir. 2005); see also Coleman v. United
 States, 635 F. App’x 875, 878 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See Blass-
 ingame v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 504, 505, aff’d, 73 F.3d
 379 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1237 (1996); An-
 derson v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 178, 179 n.2 (1990), aff’d,
 937 F.2d 623 (Fed. Cir. 1991). A sufficient reason is that

     1 Mr. McCormick, in this court, does not urge that he
 may press claims against state officials or federal officials
 under the Tucker Act—which extends only to “claim[s]
 against the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (empha-
 sis added); see United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588
 (1941) (“[I]f the relief sought is against others than the
 United States the suit as to them must be ignored as be-
 yond the jurisdiction of the [Claims Court].”).
Case: 23-2314    Document: 22      Page: 6    Filed: 03/08/2024

 6                                           MCCORMICK v. US

 Congress gave district courts (not the Claims Court) juris-
 diction over § 1983 claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and juris-
 diction under the “Tucker Act is displaced . . . when a law
 assertedly imposing monetary liability on the United
 States contains its own judicial remedies,” United States v.
 Bormes, 568 U.S. 6, 12 (2012). The Claims Court also lacks
 jurisdiction over Mr. McCormick’s claims under 18 U.S.C.
 §§ 241–42. Title 18 of the United States Code is the crimi-
 nal code, see 18 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and the Claims Court
 “has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims whatsoever
 under the federal criminal code.” Joshua v. United States,
 17 F.3d 378, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
     Finally, the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over Mr.
 McCormick’s constitutional claims. Neither the First
 Amendment nor the Fourteenth Amendment mandate
 compensation by the federal government (the latter also
 applying to the States, not the federal government).
 United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 887–88 (Fed. Cir.
 1983) (“[T]he [F]irst [A]mendment, standing alone, cannot
 be so interpreted to command the payment of money” and
 “the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over [the plaintiff’s]
 [F]irst [A]mendment claim.”); LeBlanc v. United States, 50
 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“None of [the Due Process
 Clause or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
 Amendment] is a sufficient basis for jurisdiction because
 they do not mandate payment of money by the govern-
 ment.”). 2

     2   In this court, in his Reply, Mr. McCormick asserts
 that he claims a breach of contract, treating federal offi-
 cials’ oath of office as constituting a contract between the
 officials and the United States, under which he may claim
 rights as a third-party beneficiary. In support of this seem-
 ingly novel claim, he provides no authority and no reason-
 ing to show satisfaction of the requirements for the
 existence of a contract or for third-party-beneficiary status
Case: 23-2314      Document: 22    Page: 7    Filed: 03/08/2024

 MCCORMICK v. US                                            7

                             III
    For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of
 Federal Claims is affirmed.
    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                        AFFIRMED

 allowing him to sue the United States. This claim was not
 presented adequately previously and therefore is forfeited.
 See, e.g., California Ridge Wind Energy LLC v. United
 States, 959 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Bannum, Inc.
 v. United States, 779 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2015).