Court Opinion

ID: 9383877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 15:01:01.736801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:48.814337
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1280    Document: 10     Page: 1    Filed: 03/28/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                 ROBERT LEWIS HILLS,
                   Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2023-1280
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:22-cv-01628-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.
                  ______________________

                      ON MOTION
                  ______________________

 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
     Following Robert Lewis Hills’ submission of his open-
 ing brief, the United States moves for summary affir-
 mance. We grant the motion.
     Mr. Hills filed a complaint in the United States Court
 of Federal Claims alleging a variety of statutory and con-
 stitutional violations by Ohio state officials relating to a
 traffic stop in Poland, Ohio. The Court of Federal Claims
Case: 23-1280     Document: 10      Page: 2     Filed: 03/28/2023

 2                                                   HILLS   v. US

 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Mr. Hills’ claims
 were not directed against the United States or based on
 money-mandating law. This appeal followed.
     We agree that summary affirmance is appropriate be-
 cause the merits of the parties’ positions are so clear “that
 no substantial question regarding the outcome of the ap-
 peal exists,” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380
 (1994). The Court of Federal Claims is a federal court of
 limited jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1491. Relevant here, it
 may only review claims against the United States. 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 beyond the jurisdiction of the
 court.”). As found by the Court of Federal Claims and not
 disputed in Mr. Hills’ opening brief, the complaint does not
 assert any claims against the United States (or a federal
 entity or officer). * Thus, the Court of Federal Claims was
 clearly correct in holding that it lacked jurisdiction.
     Accordingly,

     *   Indeed, Mr. Hills’ complaint suggests he thought
 he was filing his complaint in an Ohio state court. Dkt.
 No. 1 at 2 (“The State of Ohio allows this Municipal Court
 to claim the State vs[.] when it[’]s the municipality commit-
 ting fraud as it is not representing the state for it is [] self
 governing.”).
Case: 23-1280     Document: 10   Page: 3      Filed: 03/28/2023

 HILLS   v. US                                              3

    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The motion is granted. The Court of Federal
 Claims’ judgment is summarily affirmed.
    (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                   FOR THE COURT

 March 28, 2023                    /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
     Date                          Peter R. Marksteiner
                                   Clerk of Court