“[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.”
How later courts described this case
- “[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.”
- “[I]n the absence of subject matter jurisdiction there can be no preclusive findings or conclusions on the merits, and dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is without prejudice.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 24-1253C
(Filed: April 23, 2025)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
*************************************
KAYLIN E. JOHNSON, *
*
Plaintiff, *
*
v. *
*
THE UNITED STATES, *
*
Defendant. *
*
*************************************
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Kaylin E. Johnson, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint in this
Court related to his criminal conviction in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan. See Compl. at 1 (ECF 1). The government has moved to
dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and in the alternative under RCFC 12(b)(6). Mot. to
Dismiss at 1 (ECF 21). Plaintiff has not responded. The motion to dismiss is
GRANTED.
This Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction — its authority to pass judgment on
the cases before it — is limited to specific types of claims, most commonly non-tort
claims for money damages under the Tucker Act. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); see
also Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The Court of Federal
Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction.”). Perhaps confusingly for pro se litigants, it
is not a forum for “federal claims” generally. Claims that are outside the Court’s
jurisdiction must be dismissed. RCFC 12(h)(3). “In determining jurisdiction, a court
must accept as true all undisputed facts asserted in the plaintiff’s complaint and draw
all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United
States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d
795, 797 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). “Although a pro se plaintiff’s complaint is held to a less
stringent standard than those prepared by counsel, pro se litigants are not excused
from meeting jurisdictional requirements.” Spengler v. United States, 688 F. App’x
917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations omitted) (citing Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9
(1980), and Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987));
see also Howard-Pinson v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 551, 553 (2006) (citing Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972)) (explaining that pro se litigants are “entitled to
a liberal construction of [their] pleadings”). In addition, to survive a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim, plaintiffs must sufficiently “plead[] facts upon which a
valid claim can rest.” El Bey v. United States, 152 Fed. Cl. 777, 780 (2021) (quoting
Stroughter v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 755, 760 (2009)); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Although Plaintiff characterizes his claim as involving a breach of contract,
Plaintiff appears to seek reversal of his criminal conviction. This Court may not
review the decisions of other courts related to Plaintiff’s criminal case. Jones v. United
States, 440 F. App’x 916, 918 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also 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.”). Nor does this Court otherwise have
jurisdiction over criminal matters, see Treviño v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 204, 209
(2013), aff’d, 557 F. App’x 995 (Fed. Cir. 2014), or treaties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1502. To
the extent Plaintiff claims a violation of the Tenth Amendment, that constitutional
provision does not require payment of money, and therefore cannot be the basis of
claims in this Court. See Ogden v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 44, 47 (2004).
CONCLUSION
I have reviewed the complaint in its entirety, and I am unable to identify any
claims within this Court’s jurisdiction. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF 21) is
GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction.
See Aerolineas Argentinas v. United States, 77 F.3d 1564, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[I]n
the absence of subject matter jurisdiction there can be no preclusive findings or
conclusions on the merits, and dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is without prejudice.”).
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Stephen S. Schwartz
STEPHEN S. SCHWARTZ
Judge
-2-