“[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.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 25-2134C
(Filed: May 13, 2026)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
***************************************
EDWARD S. MCLARNON, *
*
Plaintiff, *
*
v. *
*
THE UNITED STATES, *
*
Defendant. *
*
***************************************
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Edward S. McLarnon, proceeding pro se, raises claims arising from
his federal incarceration and a previous claim in this Court. See Compl. (ECF 1). He
has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See App. (ECF 2). The government
has moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. See Mot.
(ECF 6); RCFC 12(b)(1), (6). Plaintiff has not responded. The application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 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.”). 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”).
Plaintiff may be seeking reversal of his criminal conviction or release from
federal prison. 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.”). This
Court cannot grant writs of habeas corpus. Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378,
1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Rolle v. United States, 752 F. App’x 1005, 1006–07
(Fed. Cir. 2018). 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).
Plaintiff alleges breach of a federal contract. That kind of claim is at least
within this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. But Plaintiff must also satisfy the
relevant pleading standard, which requires Plaintiff to “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).
Plaintiff’s factual allegations do not permit a plausible inference that a contract
existed, let alone to “identify the substantive provisions of the contract … on which
[he] relies.” See RCFC 9(k). He has therefore failed to plead facts sufficient to support
his claim. See RCFC 12(b)(6).
CONCLUSION
The application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 2) and Defendant’s
motion to dismiss (ECF 6) are GRANTED. If Plaintiff wishes to plead additional facts
in support of a claim for breach of contract, he may move for leave to file an amended
complaint — in a single filing that includes all necessary attachments — no later
than June 12, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Stephen S. Schwartz
STEPHEN S. SCHWARTZ
Judge
-2-