Court Opinion

ID: 9403558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 15:02:50.866061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:07.973909
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1181   Document: 21     Page: 1   Filed: 06/08/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                  SOMONA LOFTON,
                   Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                   UNITED STATES,
                   Defendant-Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2023-1181
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:22-cv-01335-AOB, Judge Armando O. Bonilla.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: June 08, 2023
                 ______________________

    SOMONA MARIE LOFTON, Fairfield, CA, pro se.

     CURTIS CLARENCE PETT, Tax Division, United States
 Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-ap-
 pellee. Also represented by BRUCE R. ELLISEN, DAVID A.
 HUBBERT.
                  ______________________

     Before REYNA, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
Case: 23-1181     Document: 21     Page: 2    Filed: 06/08/2023

 2                                                LOFTON   v. US

     Ms. Lofton appeals two orders issued by the United
 States Court of Federal Claims that dismissed her claims
 against California state and local agencies along with her
 tax refund case against the United States. For the follow-
 ing reasons, we affirm.
                               I
      On September 14, 2022, Ms. Lofton filed a complaint
 with the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims
 Court”) alleging that employees of the State of California’s
 Health and Human Services Agency and Department of So-
 cial Services harassed her and withheld benefits. SAppx 2,
 11. 1 The Claims Court sua sponte dismissed Ms. Lofton’s
 claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over claims
 against state and local agencies, citing its limited jurisdic-
 tion to hear cases against the United States Government.
 SAppx 2 (citing Jones v. United States, 104. Fed. Cl. 92, 98
 (2012); Souders v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth., 497 F.3d 1303,
 1307–08 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Fanning, Phillips & Molnar v.
 West, 160 F.3d 717, 720 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
     Ms. Lofton’s complaint also brought a tax refund case
 against the United States Government. SAppx 4. That
 claim centers around a 2021 federal income tax refund,
 which the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) refused to pro-
 cess. Id. Ms. Lofton filed her tax refund suit on September
 14, 2022, which was, by the Claims Court’s calculation, 3
 months and 27 days after purportedly filing her 2021 Form
 1040-X—not six months, which is required under 26 U.S.C.
 § 6532(a). SAppx 5. In alleging the IRS has not yet pro-
 cessed her refund, Ms. Lofton conceded that the IRS did not
 issue a decision prior to her filing suit. Id. The Claims
 Court ultimately dismissed the case without prejudice on
 November 18, 2022, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

     1  “SAppx” refers to the Government’s supplemental
 appendix.
Case: 23-1181     Document: 21       Page: 3    Filed: 06/08/2023

 LOFTON   v. US                                                3

 SAppx 5–6 (citing Weston v. United States, No. 2022-1179,
 2022 WL 1097361, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2022) (“[T]he
 failure to file a timely complaint under § 6532(a)(1) de-
 prives the [Court of Federal Claims] of subject matter ju-
 risdiction.”) (citing cases); e.g., Gaynor v. United States, 150
 Fed. Cl. 519, 538 (2020) (dismissing tax refund claims for
 lack of jurisdiction because the “requisite waiting period
 had not yet elapsed” when plaintiff filed the initial com-
 plaint). In doing so, the court noted that “[t]he irony is not
 lost on the Court that this Order of Dismissal is being is-
 sued on the precise date that Ms. Lofton’s statutory six-
 month waiting period expires.” SAppx 4–6. The Claims
 Court held that Ms. Lofton could refile her tax refund case
 as early as the date the court’s order issued. SAppx 6.
 Judgment granting the Government’s motion to dismiss
 was filed on November 22, 2022. SAppx 9. Ms. Lofton did
 not refile her tax refund claim. 2
                                II
     This court reviews de novo a decision by the Claims
 Court to dismiss a case for lack of subject matter jurisdic-
 tion. Diversified Grp. Inc. v. United States, 841 F.3d 975,
 980 (Fed. Cir. 2016). A party invoking the jurisdiction of
 the Claims Court has the burden of establishing jurisdic-
 tion by a preponderance of the evidence. Fid. & Guar. Ins.
 Underwriters, Inc. v. United States, 805 F.3d 1082, 1087
 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Although pro se plaintiffs’ complaints are
 interpreted liberally, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,

     2   Separately before this court was another appeal
 filed by Ms. Lofton, Lofton v. United States, No. 23-1175,
 2023 WL 3220932 (Fed. Cir. May 2023). In the case under-
 lying that appeal, the Claims Court dismissed her claims
 for lack of jurisdiction, which sought an award of two mil-
 lion dollars and made various allegations against courts
 across the country. The Claims Court’s dismissal was af-
 firmed.
Case: 23-1181     Document: 21     Page: 4    Filed: 06/08/2023

 4                                                LOFTON   v. US

 106 (1976), Ms. Lofton still bears the burden of establishing
 the Claims Court’s jurisdiction over her claims, see Brandt
 v. United States, 710 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see
 also Roman v. United States, 61 F.4th 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
 2023).
     The Claims Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and
 can resolve only those claims for which the United States
 has waived sovereign immunity. United States. v. Testan,
 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976). The Tucker Act is one such
 waiver, but it does not create any substantive right enforce-
 able against the United States for money damages. United
 States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212, 216 (1983); 28 U.S.C.
 § 1491(a)(1). Ms. Lofton must still demonstrate that the
 source of substantive law she relies on can be fairly inter-
 preted as mandating compensation by the Federal Govern-
 ment for the damages sustained. Id. at 216–17 (citing
 Testan, 424 U.S. at 398–400.
     Federal courts have an independent obligation to de-
 termine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists. Jones,
 104 Fed. Cl. at 95. The Claims Court is not authorized to
 hear claims against defendants other than the United
 States Government under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.
 § 1491(a)(1). See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584,
 587–89 (1941); Souders, 497 F.3d at 1307 (“Claims founded
 on state law are also outside the scope of the limited juris-
 diction of the Court of Federal Claims.”). Nor is the Claims
 Court authorized to hear tort or criminal claims. Souders,
 497 F.3d at 1307; see also Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d
 378, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“The court has no jurisdiction to
 adjudicate any claims whatsoever under the federal crimi-
 nal code and the due process and equal protection clauses
 of the Fifth Amendment do not provide for the payment of
 monies, even if there were a violation.”).
      The Claims Court correctly found that Ms. Lofton’s
 state and local agency claims fell outside of its subject mat-
 ter jurisdiction, as those entities are not the United States
Case: 23-1181     Document: 21     Page: 5    Filed: 06/08/2023

 LOFTON   v. US                                              5

 and these claims are not against the Federal Government.
 Souders, 497 F.3d at 1308; see also LeBlanc v. United
 States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
      As for Ms. Lofton’s tax refund claim, at the time she
 filed her complaint with the Claims Court, the statutory
 waiting period for her taxpayer suit had not expired.
 SAppx 5. Under 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a), a taxpayer cannot file
 for a tax refund until six months after the filing date of the
 claim with the IRS, as provided by 26 U.S.C. § 6532(a). The
 Claims Court properly assessed jurisdiction at the time Ms.
 Lofton’s complaint was filed and found that Ms. Lofton had
 not waited until the end of the six-month statutory period
 before filing suit in the Claims Court. SAppx 4–5. Thus,
 the Claims Court properly dismissed the case without prej-
 udice on November 18, 2022. SAppx 4–6. The Claims
 Court found that Ms. Lofton could refile her tax refund
 case. SAppx 6. 3 Accordingly, we find that both the Claims
 Court and this court lack jurisdiction over Ms. Lofton’s tax
 refund claim.
      Finally, Ms. Lofton’s reply brief appears to raise new
 allegations against additional state employees. Appel-
 lant’s Reply Br. 1–5. To the extent this raises a new issue,
 it is deemed waived. Novosteel SA v. United States, 284
 F.3d 1261, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2002). If it relates back to either
 Ms. Lofton’s tax refund claim or agency claims, it is simi-
 larly outside of the court’s jurisdiction for the reasons de-
 scribed above.

     3   Appellee informs this court that the IRS has since
 issued Ms. Lofton the refund she requested, effectively ren-
 dering this suit moot. Appellee’s Br. 4 n.2. Ms. Lofton’s
 reply brief does not refute this development. We leave this
 issue, and whether it renders her suit moot, for the Claims
 Court to decide should Ms. Lofton refile her tax refund
 case.
Case: 23-1181    Document: 21     Page: 6   Filed: 06/08/2023

 6                                             LOFTON   v. US

                            III
     We have considered Ms. Lofton’s other arguments and
 find them unpersuasive. We affirm the Court of Federal
 Claims’ dismissal of both Ms. Lofton’s claim against Cali-
 fornia state and local agencies and her tax refund claim.
                       AFFIRMED
                          COSTS
 No costs.