Patrick Di Santo v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PATRICK DI SANTO,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1694
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-02099-LAS, Senior Judge Loren A. Smith.
______________________
Decided: March 11, 2025
______________________
P ATRICK D I SANTO, Lenexa, KS, pro se.
VIJAYA SURAMPUDI, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, P ATRICIA
M. MCCARTHY .
______________________
Before L OURIE, D YK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1694 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 03/11/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

DI SANTO v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Patrick Di Santo appeals pro se from a judgment of the
U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing
his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
I
On December 8, 2023, Mr. Di Santo filed a pro se com-
plaint in the Claims Court. Mr. Di Santo’s complaint
named as defendants the United States, his former spouse,
and her attorney.1 Mr. Di Santo challenged the entry of a
default judgment against him in proceedings before the Su-
preme Court of the State of New York for the County of
Ulster. Those proceedings apparently somehow related to
earlier divorce and custody battles with his former spouse
and her attorney. Mr. Di Santo further explained that, in
his view, his former spouse and her attorney have engaged
in a decades-long pattern of filing “frivolous” and harassing
lawsuits against him, which have resulted in the loss of his
custody over his two children and the dissolution of his es-
tate. S. App’x 6.2
Mr. Di Santo alleged that the default judgment should
be set aside in part because at the time of the default, he
was “confined to G3 West psych pod in the Bradenton[,]
Florida detainment center under the judicial care of Judge
Hunter Carrol.” S. App’x 9. He claimed that, despite his
efforts to have the default set aside by the New York state
courts, those courts impermissibly “denied [him] equal ac-
commodations” for his traumatic brain injury, and in doing
1 Although Mr. Di Santo listed his former spouse and
her attorney as defendants in his complaint, the caption of
the case before the Claims Court reflected only the govern-
ment as a defendant, a convention this court has main-
tained on appeal.
2 Citations to “S. App’x” are to the supplemental ap-
pendix filed by the government.
Case: 24-1694 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 03/11/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

DI SANTO v. US 3
so, infringed upon his fundamental right of access to the
courts. S. App’x 11. In his brief to this court, Mr. Di Santo
challenges other actions of the New York state courts in his
custody proceedings.
The government moved to dismiss Mr. Di Santo’s com-
plaint, arguing that the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction
over his claims. The Claims Court agreed with the govern-
ment, granted the motion, and dismissed Mr. Di Santo’s
complaint.
Mr. Di Santo appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
II
We review dismissals by the Claims Court for lack of
jurisdiction de novo. Frazer v. United States, 288 F.3d
1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The plaintiff must establish
the court’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir.
2002). Unrepresented plaintiffs are not held to as strin-
gent a pleading standard as represented parties. See
Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). However, this prin-
ciple does not relieve an unrepresented plaintiff of the ob-
ligation to establish jurisdiction. See Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S.
Dep’t of Lab., 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The Claims Court possesses jurisdiction over “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). The Claims Court does not possess ju-
risdiction over state courts, state officials, or private indi-
viduals. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588
(1941).
Although Mr. Di Santo named the United States as a
defendant in his complaint, it is apparent that his claims
Case: 24-1694 Document: 46 Page: 3 Filed: 03/11/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

DI SANTO v. US 4
were directed not against the United States, but against
state entities, officials, and private individuals outside the
Claims Court’s jurisdiction. See id. (“[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.”).
The Claims Court correctly dismissed Mr. Di Santo’s com-
plaint for lack of jurisdiction.
We have considered Mr. Di Santo’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive.3
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
3 Our affirmance of the Claims Court’s decision obvi-
ates the need to address Mr. Di Santo’s motions pending
before this court, one of which seeks reconsideration of the
earlier denial of a separate motion, and the other of which
appears to seek rehearing by the panel or en banc prior to
issuance of a decision in his appeal. We deny both motions
as moot.
Case: 24-1694 Document: 46 Page: 4 Filed: 03/11/2025

-- 4 of 4 --