Court Opinion

ID: 9890542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 15:01:41.093224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:26.479259
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1481     Document: 28    Page: 1     Filed: 10/13/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                  DAVID HAWTHORNE,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,
                     Defendant-Appellee
                   ______________________

                         2023-1481
                   ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Northern District of Alabama in No. 5:21-cv-01278-LCB,
 Judge Liles C. Burke.
                  ______________________

                  Decided: October 13, 2023
                   ______________________

    DAVID HAWTHORNE, Madison, AL, pro se.

     STEPHANIE FLEMING, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
 REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON,
 PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
                   ______________________
Case: 23-1481    Document: 28      Page: 2    Filed: 10/13/2023

 2                     HAWTHORNE v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

     Before MOORE, Chief Judge, STOLL and CUNNINGHAM,
                      Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     David Hawthorne appeals a decision of the District
 Court for the Northern District of Alabama dismissing his
 case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     Mr. Hawthorne was a civilian engineer for the Army at
 Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama. S. Appx. 101.
 In 2014, Mr. Hawthorne and the Army entered into a ne-
 gotiated settlement agreement (NSA) related to a formal
 Equal Employment Opportunity complaint he filed. Id.
 Mr. Hawthorne has filed several other suits in the North-
 ern District of Alabama relating to the NSA, all of which
 have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
 S. Appx. 102. In September 2021, Mr. Hawthorne filed the
 current suit, seeking rescission of the NSA under various
 statutes, including the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.
 § 1346(a)(2). S. Appx. 709. The district court dismissed
 Mr. Hawthorne’s complaint for lack of subject matter juris-
 diction. S. Appx. 101–10. Specifically, the court held, inter
 alia, it lacks jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act be-
 cause Mr. Hawthorne’s claim is only for equitable relief. S.
 Appx. 104–06. Mr. Hawthorne appeals. We have jurisdic-
 tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2).
                         DISCUSSION
     Whether a district court has subject matter jurisdiction
 over an action is a question of law that we review de novo.
 De Archibold v. United States, 499 F.3d 1310, 1313 (Fed.
 Cir. 2007). The district court has jurisdiction under the
 Little Tucker Act only for claims for monetary relief “not
 exceeding $10,000 in amount.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2); Doe
 v. United States, 372 F.3d 1308, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2004). On
 appeal, Mr. Hawthorne argues the district court has juris-
 diction under the Little Tucker Act because he seeks zero
Case: 23-1481     Document: 28      Page: 3   Filed: 10/13/2023

 HAWTHORNE v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY                          3

 dollars, which is a monetary value less than $10,000. 1 Ap-
 pellant’s Opening Br. at 9; Appellant’s Informal Reply Br.
 at 2. We do not agree.
     Mr. Hawthorne did not request any monetary relief in
 his complaint. S. Appx. 105–06. Even if it had been pled
 in the complaint, a claim for zero dollars is not a request
 for monetary relief. Instead, his claim is for rescission of
 the NSA, which is a claim for equitable relief. S. Appx.
 705–06. Because claims for only equitable relief are not
 available under the Little Tucker Act, the district court cor-
 rectly determined it does not have subject matter jurisdic-
 tion. We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal for
 lack of jurisdiction.
                         AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 No costs.

     1   Mr. Hawthorne for the first time in his Memoran-
 dum in Lieu of Oral Argument appears to contest the dis-
 trict court’s determination that it lacked subject matter
 jurisdiction over Mr. Hawthorne’s claims under 28 U.S.C.
 §§ 1331, 1343; the Declaratory Judgment Act; and the Ad-
 ministrative Procedure Act due to the preclusive effect un-
 der res judicata. Appellant’s Memorandum at 2. This
 argument is forfeited because it is untimely. See SEKRI,
 Inc. v. United States, 34 F.4th 1063, 1071 n.9 (Fed. Cir.
 2022) (finding an argument that was raised for the first
 time at oral argument was forfeited).