Case: 23-2314 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 03/08/2024
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`MARK MCCORMICK,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2023-2314
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
`in No. 1:23-cv-00539-MHS, Judge Matthew H. Solomson.
`______________________
`
`Decided: March 8, 2024
`______________________
`
`MARK MCCORMICK, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
`
`
` MATNEY ELIZABETH ROLFE, Commercial Litigation
`Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
`tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
`sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.
`MCCARTHY.
` ______________________
`
`Before TARANTO, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit
`Judges.
`
`
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`MARK MCCORMICK,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2023-2314
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
`in No. 1:23-cv-00539-MHS, Judge Matthew H. Solomson.
`______________________
`
`Decided: March 8, 2024
`______________________
`
`MARK MCCORMICK, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
`
`
` MATNEY ELIZABETH ROLFE, Commercial Litigation
`Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
`tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
`sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.
`MCCARTHY.
` ______________________
`
`Before TARANTO, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit
`Judges.
`
`
`
`Case: 23-2314 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 03/08/2024
`
`2
`
`MCCORMICK v. US
`
`PER CURIAM.
`Mark McCormick, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint
`against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims.
`Complaint, McCormick v. United States, No. 23-cv-00539
`(Fed. Cl. Apr. 13, 2023), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter “Claims
`Court Docket”]. After staying proceedings to give it time to
`determine whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction over
`the case, the Claims Court concluded that it lacked juris-
`diction and dismissed Mr. McCormick’s complaint and en-
`tered final judgment. McCormick v. United States, No. 23-
`539C, 2023 WL 4311650, at *3 (Fed. Cl. July 3, 2023)
`(Claims Court Decision); Judgment, Claims Court Docket
`(July 10, 2023), ECF No. 10. Mr. McCormick appeals. Be-
`cause we determine that the Claims Court did not have
`subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. McCormick’s com-
`plaint, we affirm the Claims Court’s decision.
`I
`In his complaint, Mr. McCormick alleged a number of
`injuries suffered by him and his now-deceased brother Mo-
`ses and pointed to several unsuccessful cases he (alone or
`with his brother) previously brought, citing McCormick v.
`Browne, No. 17-cv-00595, 2017 WL 8790950 (S.D. Ohio
`Dec. 27, 2017), aff’d, No. 18-3004, 2018 WL 11327092 (6th
`Cir. Sept. 18, 2018); Order, McCormick v. Dreamy Draw
`Justice Court, No. 22-cv-01446 (D. Ariz. Nov. 10, 2022),
`ECF No. 18; Order, McCormick v. Multi State Lottery As-
`sociation, No. 23-cv-00525 (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2023), ECF
`No. 5; Notices of Voluntary Dismissal, McCormick v.
`Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Divi-
`sion, No. 19-cv-03329 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 9, 2020 and Nov. 20,
`2020), ECF Nos. 219, 225. In the present case, Mr. McCor-
`mick alleged that the United States is liable for actions of
`individuals (some of whom were federal officials) causing
`his lack of success in such cases, characterizing the actions
`as tortious, actionable under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 and 18
`U.S.C. §§ 241–42, and violative of the First and Fourteenth
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 23-2314 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 03/08/2024
`
`MCCORMICK v. US
`
`3
`
`Amendments to the United States Constitution. Com-
`plaint at 1, 3–5, 9, Claims Court Docket (Apr. 13, 2023),
`ECF No. 1. Mr. McCormick also alleged more generally
`that the United States is liable for intentional and negli-
`gent acts committed by Ohio state officials and federal of-
`ficials that caused him to suffer damage to his business,
`person, and property and ultimately resulted in the at-
`tempted killing of him and the death of his brother. Id. at
`5–9. Mr. McCormick sought compensatory damages of $75
`billion and punitive damages. Id. at 1-1.
`The Claims Court dismissed Mr. McCormick’s claims
`for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It explained that, to
`the extent that the complaint suggested the assertion of
`claims against individual federal officials or individual
`state officials, the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over
`such claims; and it also explained that it lacked jurisdiction
`over the claims Mr. McCormick asserted against the
`United States—tort claims, state-law claims, statutory
`claims, and particular constitutional claims. Claims Court
`Decision, at *2–3. Mr. McCormick timely filed his appeal
`on August 17, 2023, as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b)(1).
`We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
`II
`We review whether the Claims Court possesses sub-
`ject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Taylor v. United States,
`959 F.3d 1081, 1086 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Biltmore Forest
`Broadcasting FM, Inc. v. United States, 555 F.3d 1375,
`1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`The jurisdiction of the Claims Court is “defined by the
`Tucker Act, which gives the court authority to render judg-
`ment on certain monetary claims against the United
`States.” RadioShack Corp. v. United States, 566 F.3d 1358,
`1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)). The
`Tucker Act provides:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 23-2314 Document: 22 Page: 4 Filed: 03/08/2024
`
`4
`
`MCCORMICK v. US
`
`The United States Court of Federal Claims shall
`have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any
`claim against the United States founded either
`upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or
`any regulation of an executive department, or upon
`any express or implied contract with the United
`States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages
`in cases not sounding in tort.
`28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Importantly, although the Tucker
`Act waives the sovereign immunity of the federal govern-
`ment, it does not itself provide any substantive rights or
`any right of action to obtain monetary relief for wrongs.
`Accordingly, to invoke Claims Court jurisdiction pursuant
`to the Tucker Act, “a plaintiff must identify a right to
`money damages found in the Constitution, a statute or gov-
`ernment regulation, or a contract.” Folden v. United
`States, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see United
`States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216–17 (1983). In other
`words, for claims like those asserted here, a plaintiff, be-
`sides identifying “the source of substantive law he relies
`upon,” must show that the identified source of law “can
`fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the
`[f]ederal [g]overnment for the damages sustained.” Mitch-
`ell, 463 U.S. at 216–17 (quoting United States v. Testan,
`424 U.S. 392, 400 (1976)) (internal quotation marks omit-
`ted). This requirement extends to pro se, as well as lawyer-
`represented, plaintiffs. See Sanders v. United States, 252
`F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`Mr. McCormick’s complaint, if read generously, asserts
`against the United States only tort claims, claims based on
`state law, federal statutory claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
`and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–42, and constitutional claims under
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 23-2314 Document: 22 Page: 5 Filed: 03/08/2024
`
`MCCORMICK v. US
`
`5
`
`the First and Fourteenth Amendments.1 But Mr. McCor-
`mick has not identified any claim within the Tucker Act.
`Tort claims “are clearly outside the limited jurisdic-
`tion” of the Claims Court, and claims “founded on state law
`are also outside the scope of the limited jurisdiction” of the
`Claims Court. Souders v. South Carolina Public Service
`Authority, 497 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see 28
`U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (reciting only federal-law sources of
`rights and excluding cases “sounding in tort”); see also
`Rick’s Mushroom Service, Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d
`1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“The plain language of the
`Tucker Act excludes from the [Claims Court’s] jurisdiction
`claims sounding in tort.”).
`The Tucker Act also does not cover Mr. McCormick’s
`federal statutory claims. We have repeatedly affirmed
`Claims Court rulings that the Tucker Act does not extend
`to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even aside from the fact
`that § 1983 is limited to persons acting under state or ter-
`ritorial law, see Settles v. U.S. Parole Commission, 429 F.3d
`1098, 1105–06 (D.C. Cir. 2005); see also Coleman v. United
`States, 635 F. App’x 875, 878 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See Blass-
`ingame v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 504, 505, aff’d, 73 F.3d
`379 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1237 (1996); An-
`derson v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 178, 179 n.2 (1990), aff’d,
`937 F.2d 623 (Fed. Cir. 1991). A sufficient reason is that
`
`
`1 Mr. McCormick, in this court, does not urge that he
`may press claims against state officials or federal officials
`under the Tucker Act—which extends only to “claim[s]
`against the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (empha-
`sis added); see United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588
`(1941) (“[I]f the relief sought is against others than the
`United States the suit as to them must be ignored as be-
`yond the jurisdiction of the [Claims Court].”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 23-2314 Document: 22 Page: 6 Filed: 03/08/2024
`
`6
`
`MCCORMICK v. US
`
`Congress gave district courts (not the Claims Court) juris-
`diction over § 1983 claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and juris-
`diction under the “Tucker Act is displaced . . . when a law
`assertedly imposing monetary liability on the United
`States contains its own judicial remedies,” United States v.
`Bormes, 568 U.S. 6, 12 (2012). The Claims Court also lacks
`jurisdiction over Mr. McCormick’s claims under 18 U.S.C.
`§§ 241–42. Title 18 of the United States Code is the crimi-
`nal code, see 18 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and the Claims Court
`“has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims whatsoever
`under the federal criminal code.” Joshua v. United States,
`17 F.3d 378, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Finally, the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over Mr.
`McCormick’s constitutional claims. Neither the First
`Amendment nor the Fourteenth Amendment mandate
`compensation by the federal government (the latter also
`applying to the States, not the federal government).
`United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 887–88 (Fed. Cir.
`1983) (“[T]he [F]irst [A]mendment, standing alone, cannot
`be so interpreted to command the payment of money” and
`“the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over [the plaintiff’s]
`[F]irst [A]mendment claim.”); LeBlanc v. United States, 50
`F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“None of [the Due Process
`Clause or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
`Amendment] is a sufficient basis for jurisdiction because
`they do not mandate payment of money by the govern-
`ment.”).2
`
`
`2 In this court, in his Reply, Mr. McCormick asserts
`that he claims a breach of contract, treating federal offi-
`cials’ oath of office as constituting a contract between the
`officials and the United States, under which he may claim
`rights as a third-party beneficiary. In support of this seem-
`ingly novel claim, he provides no authority and no reason-
`ing to show satisfaction of the requirements for the
`existence of a contract or for third-party-beneficiary status
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 23-2314 Document: 22 Page: 7 Filed: 03/08/2024
`
`MCCORMICK v. US
`
`7
`
`III
`For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of
`Federal Claims is affirmed.
`The parties shall bear their own costs.
`AFFIRMED
`
`
`allowing him to sue the United States. This claim was not
`presented adequately previously and therefore is forfeited.
`See, e.g., California Ridge Wind Energy LLC v. United
`States, 959 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Bannum, Inc.
`v. United States, 779 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
