Court Opinion

ID: 9369948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 14:00:29.749337+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:18.258241
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1810    Document: 51     Page: 1     Filed: 02/10/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                ROWLAND J. MARTIN, JR.,
                   Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2022-1810
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:21-cv-01987-EDK, Chief Judge Elaine Kaplan.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: February 10, 2023
                  ______________________

    ROWLAND J. MARTIN, JR., San Antonio, TX, pro se.

    JOSHUA A. MANDLEBAUM, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United Department of Justice,
 Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented
 by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                ______________________

  Before STOLL, SCHALL, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-1810     Document: 51     Page: 2    Filed: 02/10/2023

 2                                                MARTIN   v. US

 PER CURIAM.
     Rowland J. Martin, Jr. appeals from two orders of the
 United States Court of Federal Claims, the first dismissing
 his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the
 second denying his motions for leave to file an amended
 complaint and for modification of the judgment. For the
 below reasons, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     In 2010, Mr. Martin filed a pro se complaint against
 various parties in the United States District Court for the
 Western District of Texas. See Martin v. Grehn, 546
 F. App’x 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2013). The dispute giving rise
 to this complaint began in 2005, when Mr. Martin filed for
 bankruptcy protection and listed among his assets a prop-
 erty in San Antonio, Texas. Several entities held liens on
 this property, including the law firm of McKnight and
 Bravenec, which held a lien for unpaid legal fees. In 2006,
 the law firm paid the lien, claimed title to the property, and
 foreclosed. In response, Mr. Martin sued, among others,
 Edward Bravenec of the McKnight and Bravenec firm,
 seeking the return of his property. The court ultimately
 granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the
 Fifth Circuit affirmed. Id. at 417.
      During the pendency of that lawsuit, Mr. Martin filed
 a lis pendens lien against the disputed property, alleging
 that the property was subject to ongoing litigation in fed-
 eral court. Martin v. Bravenec, 627 F. App’x 310, 311
 (5th Cir. 2015). After the Fifth Circuit affirmed the suit’s
 dismissal, Mr. Bravenec moved to expunge this lien, and
 the district court granted that motion. Mr. Martin then
 filed a new lis pendens lien, asserting that the property re-
 mained subject to ongoing litigation because the Fifth Cir-
 cuit had not yet issued its mandate. Mr. Bravenec moved
 for sanctions. Without holding a hearing or ordering a re-
 sponse from Mr. Martin, the district court granted the mo-
 tion and awarded Mr. Bravenec attorneys’ fees.
Case: 22-1810     Document: 51     Page: 3    Filed: 02/10/2023

 MARTIN   v. US                                             3

 Mr. Martin appealed the sanctions order, and the Fifth Cir-
 cuit reversed, holding that the district court had not af-
 forded Mr. Martin due process before imposing the
 sanctions. Id. at 313.
      We now come to the complaint at issue in this appeal.
 In 2021, Mr. Martin filed a pro se complaint at the Court of
 Federal Claims, alleging that the sanctions decision of the
 U.S. District Court of the Western District of Texas—which
 had been reversed by the Fifth Circuit—entitled him to
 monetary damages. See, e.g., SAppx. 1 1–2 ¶¶ 1–3; see also,
 e.g., SAppx. 12 ¶ 36 (alleging a “violation of constitutional
 rights that the Fifth Circuit vacated by its 2015 decree”).
 The Court of Federal Claims liberally construed Mr. Mar-
 tin’s complaint to include several categories of claims but
 concluded it did not have jurisdiction to hear any of them.
 Accordingly, in March 2022, the trial court granted the
 government’s motion to dismiss. SAppx. 22–29; Martin
 v. United States, No. 21-1987C, 2022 WL 793142
 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 15, 2022). The trial court also noted that in
 his complaint, Mr. Martin requested that the court appoint
 a special master. The court denied that request, explaining
 that Mr. Martin had not identified an “exceptional condi-
 tion” that would require the appointment of a special mas-
 ter. SAppx. 28 (citing R. Ct. Fed. Cl. 53(a)(1)).
     Subsequently, Mr. Martin filed a motion seeking to file
 an amended complaint and to modify the court’s judgment,
 expressly relying on Rules 15(b)(2) and 59 of the Rules of
 the Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). SAppx. 31–41. In an
 April 2022 order, the trial court denied this motion.
 SAppx. 43–48; Martin v. United States, No. 21-1987C,
 2022 WL 1154139 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 18, 2022). In that order,
 the court explained that Rule 15(b)(2), which applies to
 “amendments during and after trial,” provided no basis to

     1   “SAppx.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed
 by the Government.
Case: 22-1810    Document: 51     Page: 4    Filed: 02/10/2023

 4                                              MARTIN   v. US

 amend the complaint because there had been no trial.
 SAppx. 44–45. Regarding Rule 59, the trial court ex-
 plained that Mr. Martin would have had to demonstrate an
 intervening change in controlling law, newly discovered ev-
 idence, or a manifest error of law or mistake of fact in the
 court’s prior decision to dismiss. The trial court deter-
 mined that Mr. Martin’s motion did not meet this stand-
 ard. Accordingly, the trial court concluded there was no
 basis to reconsider its March 2022 order.
     Mr. Martin appeals the March 2022 order dismissing
 his complaint and the April 2022 order denying his motion.
 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
                        DISCUSSION
      We review the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of a
 complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo.
 Creative Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. United States, 989 F.3d 955,
 961 (Fed. Cir. 2021). We construe pro se filings like
 Mr. Martin’s liberally, but that does not alleviate Mr. Mar-
 tin’s burden to establish jurisdiction. Henke v. United
 States, 60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Kelly v. Sec’y,
 U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
     We review the denial of a motion for leave to amend the
 complaint, as well as the denial of a motion for reconsider-
 ation, for an abuse of discretion. Renda Marine, Inc.
 v. United States, 509 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The
 trial court abuses its discretion when it “misunderstands
 or misapplies the relevant law or makes clearly erroneous
 findings of fact.” Id.
      On appeal, Mr. Martin argues that the trial court
 (1) improperly dismissed his complaint and (2) abused its
 discretion in denying his motion to amend and for recon-
 sideration. See generally Appellant’s Br. 15–18, 27–28. We
 address each of these in turn.
     We turn first to the court’s determination to dismiss
 Mr. Martin’s complaint for lack of subject matter
Case: 22-1810     Document: 51     Page: 5    Filed: 02/10/2023

 MARTIN   v. US                                             5

 jurisdiction. The Court of Federal Claims is a court of lim-
 ited jurisdiction, meaning it can only hear certain types of
 legal claims. Specifically, the Court of Federal Claims is
 primarily authorized to hear money claims founded upon
 the Constitution, federal statutes, executive regulations, or
 contracts with the United States. For example, the court
 has jurisdiction over claims for just compensation for the
 taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment, re-
 quests for the refund of federal taxes, claims regarding mil-
 itary and civilian pay, and claims for damages for the
 government’s breaches of contract. The court also has ju-
 risdiction over bid protests involving government con-
 tracts, vaccine compensation, claims of patent and
 copyright infringement against the United States, and cer-
 tain suits brought by Indian tribes.
     To show jurisdiction, plaintiffs at the Court of Federal
 Claims must identify a contract or a source of substantive
 law (such as a constitutional provision, federal statute, or
 agency regulation) that provides a right to money damages.
 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); see Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d
 1091, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The source of law must be
 “money-mandating,” i.e., it must mandate compensation by
 the government. Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114,
 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013). A plaintiff cannot establish jurisdic-
 tion in the Court of Federal Claims through only vague,
 conclusory, or unsupported assertions. Bradley v. Chiron
 Corp., 136 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“Conclusory
 allegations of law and unwarranted inferences of fact do
 not suffice to support a claim.”).
     The court’s limited jurisdiction means that it cannot
 hear many types of claims. For example, the court can only
 hear claims against the government; thus, it cannot hear
 claims brought against individuals, even individuals al-
 leged to be federal officials. Brown v. United States, 105
 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The Tucker Act grants the
 Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over suits against the
 United States, not against individual federal officials.”).
Case: 22-1810     Document: 51      Page: 6     Filed: 02/10/2023

 6                                                 MARTIN   v. US

 The Court of Federal Claims also cannot review the deci-
 sions of other federal courts, including federal district
 courts. Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir.
 1994). And unlike district courts, the Court of Federal
 Claims can neither hear claims involving allegedly crimi-
 nal or tortious actions, § 1491(a)(1), nor claims arising un-
 der the civil rights statutes, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a) (stating
 that jurisdiction over civil rights claims is “conferred on the
 district courts”). Similarly, claims challenging certain
 agency decisions, including decisions of the Federal Com-
 munications Commission (FCC), may not be brought before
 the Court of Federal Claims. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 2342 (ex-
 plaining that challenges to FCC decisions can only be
 brought in certain courts).
      While the Court of Federal Claims can review certain
 contractual claims, see § 1491(a)(1), jurisdiction requires a
 non-frivolous allegation that an express or implied-in-fact
 contract exists. Trauma Serv. Grp. v. United States, 104
 F.3d 1321, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“To show jurisdiction in
 the Court of Federal Claims, [a plaintiff] must show that
 either an express or implied-in-fact contract underlies its
 claim.”). Simply citing to various Constitutional Amend-
 ments or Articles, without more, is insufficient for a plain-
 tiff to establish the existence of a contract for jurisdictional
 purposes. See, e.g., Taylor v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl.
 171, 173 (2013) (rejecting the argument that the Constitu-
 tion was a contract with plaintiff). Further, the Constitu-
 tion is not itself a money-mandating source of law that
 would grant jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims.
 See, e.g., United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 887
 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (explaining that the First Amendment is
 not money-mandating).
     In this case, the Court of Federal Claims construed
 Mr. Martin’s complaint and subsequent filings as asserting
 the following claims: (1) challenges to the district court’s
 sanctions order; (2) claims against Mr. Bravenec; (3) alle-
 gations that the district court’s actions were criminal or
Case: 22-1810     Document: 51      Page: 7     Filed: 02/10/2023

 MARTIN   v. US                                                7

 tortious; (4) a claim for breach of contract based on the Con-
 stitution; (5) various claims under Article I of the Constitu-
 tion as well as the First, Fourth, Fifth, Tenth, and
 Thirteenth Amendments; (6) various claims under civil
 rights statutes; (7) a claim under 47 U.S.C. § 151, the stat-
 ute which established the FCC; and (8) various claims
 brought under unspecified “norms of judicial and govern-
 mental conduct,” “treaty covenants,” “the customary inter-
 national law of human rights,” and “the law of nations,”
 SAppx. 3, ¶ 6. Martin, 2022 WL 793142, at *3–5. On ap-
 peal, Mr. Martin reasserts these claims and also raises a
 few new claims: (1) a “purchase money lien claim,” Appel-
 lant’s Br. 40; (2) an assertion that the district court’s va-
 cated sanctions order “violat[ed] . . . the American Rule on
 court costs,” id. at 18, 40–42, 45, 49, 57; and (3) a claim un-
 der 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2), id. at 18.
      As we explained above, the Court of Federal Claims can
 only hear certain types of claims. Here, even broadly inter-
 preting Mr. Martin’s complaint, the Court of Federal
 Claims determined none of his arguments were of the type
 that the court has the power to adjudicate, and thus that it
 was required to dismiss his complaint. Because each of
 Mr. Martin’s allegations are of the type over which the
 Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction, we affirm. Spe-
 cifically, upon review of Mr. Martin’s complaint, most of his
 claims—like those against an individual, alleging criminal
 or tortious behavior, the violation of civil rights statutes, or
 challenging the district court’s or the FCC’s decisions—are
 explicitly excluded from the Court of Federal Claims’ juris-
 diction. The remainder of Mr. Martin’s claims are vague,
 conclusory, and unsupported, i.e., are not pled with suffi-
 cient specificity to show that the court had jurisdiction.
 Bradley, 136 F.3d at 1322. We see no error in the trial
 court’s determination that each of Mr. Martin’s claims was
 outside its jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm that court’s
 decision.
Case: 22-1810    Document: 51      Page: 8    Filed: 02/10/2023

 8                                               MARTIN   v. US

     We now address the three additional claims that
 Mr. Martin raises for the first time on appeal. As an initial
 matter, because Mr. Martin “did not raise th[ese claims]
 before the Court of Federal Claims, [they are] waived on
 appeal.” San Carlos Apache Tribe v. United States, 639
 F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Even if Mr. Martin had
 raised these claims before the Court of Federal Claims,
 that court would lack jurisdiction to consider them. Re-
 garding the first claim, the Court of Federal Claims lacks
 jurisdiction over claims seeking damages for allegedly un-
 lawful IRS collection activities, including tax liens. Led-
 ford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
 Regarding the second claim, the “American Rule on court
 costs” is not a money-mandating source of law, and thus
 the trial court has no jurisdiction to claims arising under
 that rule. And regarding the third claim, 28 U.S.C.
 § 1491(a)(2) provides only that the Court of Federal Claims
 may remand cases, render judgment in Contract Disputes
 Act cases, and correct records; it does not create an inde-
 pendent basis for jurisdiction. Thus, even if Mr. Martin
 had clearly raised these claims before the Court of Federal
 Claims, that court would have been required to dismiss
 them for lack of jurisdiction.
     Next, we turn to Mr. Martin’s argument that the trial
 court abused its discretion in denying his motion that re-
 quested (1) leave to file an amended complaint under
 Rule 15 of the Rules for the Court of Federal Claims and
 (2) modification of the judgment under Rule 59 of those
 same rules. First, under Rule 15, a party may move to
 amend the pleadings to incorporate an issue that was “tried
 by the parties’ express or implied consent.” R. Ct. Fed.
 Cl. 15(b)(2). Here, there was no basis to amend the com-
 plaint to incorporate a “tried” issue because there was no
 trial. Second, under Rule 59, the trial court “may grant a
 motion for reconsideration when there has been an inter-
 vening change in the controlling law, newly discovered ev-
 idence, or a need to correct clear factual or legal error or
Case: 22-1810     Document: 51     Page: 9    Filed: 02/10/2023

 MARTIN   v. US                                             9

 prevent manifest injustice.” Biery v. United States, 818
 F.3d 704, 711 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, Mr. Martin’s motion
 did not identify an intervening change in the law, any
 newly discovered evidence, or an error of fact or law; in-
 stead, his motion merely reiterated his prior claims. See
 generally SAppx. 31–41, 47. Accordingly, the trial court
 did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Martin’s motion.
      Finally, we note that Mr. Martin has filed multiple mo-
 tions in this case, including a “Motion for All Writs Act Re-
 lief.” See Martin v. United States, No. 22-1810 (Fed. Cir.
 Aug. 16, 2022), ECF No. 14. In that motion, Mr. Martin
 challenges a July 2022 decision in County of Bexar v. Mar-
 tin, No. SA-22-CV-00374-XR (W.D. Tex. July 18, 2022),
 granting the government’s motion to remand a state fore-
 closure action back to state court. Mr. Martin’s appellate
 briefing further addresses this motion. See Appellant’s
 Br. 18 (invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1631, which addresses trans-
 fer). As an initial matter, this motion—seeking relief in an
 unrelated district court case—has no bearing on the pre-
 sent appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. Further,
 “[a]n order remanding a case to the [s]tate court from which
 it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.”
 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). For at least these two reasons, we are
 prohibited from reviewing the district court’s remand or-
 der. Accordingly, we deny Mr. Martin’s motion.
     Mr. Martin also filed a motion requesting both a writ
 of mandamus and stay of this appeal pending review of the
 motion.      See Martin v. United States, No. 22-1810
 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2022), ECF No. 43. Like the previous
 motion, this motion appears to be related to the action
 pending in the Western District of Texas. See, e.g., id. at 2
 (requesting a writ of mandamus to Judge Pulliam, a judge
 in that district). Accordingly, we deny this motion for the
 same reasons as stated above.
    We have considered each of Mr. Martin’s remaining ar-
 guments and find them unpersuasive.
Case: 22-1810   Document: 51     Page: 10    Filed: 02/10/2023

 10                                            MARTIN   v. US

                        CONCLUSION
    For the above reasons, we affirm the judgment of the
 Court of Federal Claims and deny Mr. Martin’s pending
 motion for “Motion for All Writs Act Relief” and his motion
 requesting a writ of mandamus and a stay of appeal.
                       AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.