Court Opinion

ID: 9896007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 15:00:48.531901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:19.969340
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1994   Document: 15     Page: 1    Filed: 11/09/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                   CEDRIC GREENE,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                   UNITED STATES,
                   Defendant-Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2023-1994
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:22-cv-01711-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.
                  ______________________

                Decided: November 9, 2023
                 ______________________

    CEDRIC GREENE, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

     KELLY GEDDES, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________

  Before TARANTO, CLEVENGER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1994     Document: 15     Page: 2    Filed: 11/09/2023

 2                                               GREENE v. US

 PER CURIAM.
      Cedric Greene brought this action against the United
 States in the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court), seek-
 ing recovery for wrongs he alleged had been committed by
 the United States District Court for the Northern District
 of California. The Claims Court dismissed the action for
 lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Greene v. United States,
 No. 22-1711, 2023 WL 3454821 (Fed. Cl. May 15, 2023) (De-
 cision). We affirm.
     In his November 2022 complaint, Mr. Greene pre-
 sented what he called claims of “negligence” by the district
 court in the Northern District of California. SAppx. 4–6. 1
 Mr. Greene based his claims on two factual allegations: (1)
 that the district court signed him up for email notifications
 related to his case in that court without his consent and (2)
 that he never received “by mail” a report and recommenda-
 tion issued by a magistrate judge in his case. SAppx. 4–5.
      The Claims Court dismissed Mr. Greene’s case, con-
 cluding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction for two
 reasons. Decision, at *1–2. First, the Claims Court rea-
 soned that it did “not have jurisdiction to review the deci-
 sions of district courts,” noting that any review of the
 challenged actions of the California district court must be
 “in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cir-
 cuit.” Id. at *1. Second, the Claims Court said that because
 Mr. Greene characterized “the district court’s alleged mis-
 conduct as ‘negligence,’” his claims sounded in tort, placing
 them “outside [the Claims Court’s] jurisdiction.” Id. at *2
 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (granting the Claims Court
 jurisdiction “in cases not sounding in tort” (emphasis
 added))).

     1   “SAppx.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed
 by the United States in this court with its brief as appellee.
Case: 23-1994     Document: 15      Page: 3    Filed: 11/09/2023

 GREENE v. US                                                 3

     Mr. Greene timely appealed the dismissal of his case.
 We have jurisdiction to hear the appeal under 28 U.S.C.
 § 1295(a)(3).
     We affirm the Claims Court’s dismissal. On appeal,
 Mr. Greene expressly states that he does not challenge the
 Claims Court’s dispositive holding that it lacked subject-
 matter jurisdiction because his claims depend on review of
 a district court’s actions. See Appellant Informal Br. at 1
 (“The [Claims Court] found that the claims were beyond
 the scope of [its] authority. We won’t dispute the [Claims]
 Court’s power in terms of its authority.”); Appellant Infor-
 mal Reply Br. at 1 (“As the Appellee[] stated in [its] brief,
 the [Claims Court] doesn’t have jurisdiction to review ac-
 tions of a District Court.”). And Mr. Greene does not chal-
 lenge the Claims Court’s determination that his complaint
 sounds in tort. See id. (stating that the district court’s con-
 duct “rose to the level of a tort”); id. at 2 (stating that the
 district court “committ[ed] tort acts”).
     Moreover, we see no error in the Claims Court’s dismis-
 sal of Mr. Greene’s complaint. We review jurisdictional is-
 sues without deference, and the burden of establishing
 jurisdiction at the Claims Court rested with Mr. Greene.
 See Alder Terrace, Inc. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1372,
 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The Claims Court correctly held that
 it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr.
 Greene’s claims because it does not have the authority to
 review the district court conduct that Mr. Greene chal-
 lenges. See, e.g., Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380
 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[T]he Court of Federal Claims does not
 have jurisdiction to review the decisions of district courts
 or the clerks of district courts relating to proceedings before
 those courts.”). And the Claims Court also correctly held
 that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr.
 Greene’s claims because it does not have the statutory au-
 thority to adjudicate tort claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)
 (quoted above); Shearin v. United States, 992 F.2d 1195,
 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“It is well settled that the United
Case: 23-1994     Document: 15     Page: 4     Filed: 11/09/2023

 4                                               GREENE v. US

 States Court of Federal Claims lacks . . . jurisdiction to en-
 tertain tort claims.”).
    For those reasons, we affirm the Claims Court’s judg-
 ment dismissing Mr. Greene’s complaint.
     The parties shall bear their own costs.
                         AFFIRMED