Lomax v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: May 17, 2023
• Docket: 22-2138
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-2138 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 05/17/2023

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MATTIE T. LOMAX Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2022-2138 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:22-cv-00770-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________

PER CURIAM. ORDER Mattie T. Lomax appeals from the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing her com- plaint for lack of jurisdiction. Before the court are Ms. Lo- max’s opposed motion for entry of default judgment and the government’s opposed motion for summary affirmance. We grant the government’s motion and affirm. Case: 22-2138 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 05/17/2023

Ms. Lomax filed the underlying complaint at the Court of Federal Claims naming the State of Florida as the de- fendant. Her complaint sought a declaration that certain documents relating to her criminal record in Florida were invalid; an injunction against the state of Florida and its officers and agents; and $20,000,000 in damages plus liti- gation costs. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be in good faith. Summary affirmance is appropriate here because the merits of the parties’ positions are so clear “that no sub- stantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal ex- ists,” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Court of Federal Claims is a federal court of limited jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1491. Relevant here, it may only review monetary claims against the United States. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (holding that the Court of Federal Claims’ “jurisdic- tion is confined to the rendition of money judgments in suits brought for that relief against the United States”). Thus, the Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct in holding that it lacked jurisdiction over this case. We have considered Ms. Lomax’s arguments in her in- formal opening brief and her response to the motion for summary affirmance and do not find them persuasive. The Court of Federal Claims clearly lacks jurisdiction over claims for damages under § 1983. Shelden v. United States, 742 F. App’x 496, 501–02 (Fed. Cir. 2018); cf. Can- non v. Univ. of Chi., 441 U.S. 677, 701 n.27 (1979) (“[Sec- tion] 1983 is assuredly not available for suits against the United States[.]”). The Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that it lacked jurisdiction over Ms. Lomax’s collat- eral attacks on decisions of state and federal courts with respect to criminal matters, Jones v. United States, 440 F. App’x 916, 918 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (collecting cases), or to re- view decisions by district courts or courts of appeals gener- ally, see Boise Cascade Corp. v. United States, 296 F.3d Case: 22-2138 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 05/17/2023

LOMAX v. US 3

1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court was likewise clearly correct that it lacked jurisdiction over claims concerning defamation, discrimination, and infliction of emotional stress that sound in tort. See Jentoft v. United States, 450 F.3d 1342, 1349–50 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Finally, neither the Eleventh Amendment nor 18 U.S.C. § 242, cited in Ms. Lo- max’s papers, is a source of law that can be fairly inter- preted as creating a right to money damages against the United States that would give the court jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted. The Court of Federal Claims’ judgment is summarily af- firmed. (2) The motion for default judgment is denied. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

May 17, 2023 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court