Robert Lewis Hills v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ROBERT LEWIS HILLS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1280
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-01628-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Following Robert Lewis Hills’ submission of his open-
ing brief, the United States moves for summary affir-
mance. We grant the motion.
Mr. Hills filed a complaint in the United States Court
of Federal Claims alleging a variety of statutory and con-
stitutional violations by Ohio state officials relating to a
traffic stop in Poland, Ohio. The Court of Federal Claims
Case: 23-1280 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 03/28/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

HILLS v. US 2
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Mr. Hills’ claims
were not directed against the United States or based on
money-mandating law. This appeal followed.
We agree that summary affirmance is appropriate be-
cause the merits of the parties’ positions are so clear “that
no substantial question regarding the outcome of the ap-
peal exists,” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380
(1994). The Court of Federal Claims is a federal court of
limited jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1491. Relevant here, it
may only review claims against the United States. 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 beyond the jurisdiction of the
court.”). As found by the Court of Federal Claims and not
disputed in Mr. Hills’ opening brief, the complaint does not
assert any claims against the United States (or a federal
entity or officer).* Thus, the Court of Federal Claims was
clearly correct in holding that it lacked jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
* Indeed, Mr. Hills’ complaint suggests he thought
he was filing his complaint in an Ohio state court. Dkt.
No. 1 at 2 (“The State of Ohio allows this Municipal Court
to claim the State vs[.] when it[’]s the municipality commit-
ting fraud as it is not representing the state for it is [] self
governing.”).
Case: 23-1280 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 03/28/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

HILLS v. US 3
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion is granted. The Court of Federal
Claims’ judgment is summarily affirmed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
March 28, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 23-1280 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 03/28/2023

-- 3 of 3 --