Alonzo Spencer Owens v. United States

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ALONZO SPENCER OWENS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1883
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-00314-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.
______________________
Decided: December 13, 2024
______________________
ALONZO SPENCER OWENS, New York, NY, pro se.
MILES JARRAD WRIGHT, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented
by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, PATRICIA
M. MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before LOURIE, REYNA, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1883 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 12/13/2024

-- 1 of 5 --

OWENS v. US 2
PER CURIAM.
Alonzo Spencer Owens appeals pro se the United
States Court of Federal Claims’ order dismissing his
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We
affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Owens has a history of filing frivolous appeals with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Owens v. Shields, 34 F. App’x 33, 35 (2d Cir. 2002). In 2002,
the Second Circuit imposed sanctions on Mr. Owens that
enjoined him from any further filings before the court
without first obtaining leave to file. Id. Mr. Owens later
moved for leave to file an appeal in 2015. SAppx99.1 The
Second Circuit clerk denied the motion because the
proposed filing continued Mr. Owens’s “pattern of
vexatious filings.” SAppx99. Soon after, Mr. Owens filed a
claim with the United States Department of Justice
(“DOJ”), Civil Division, Federal Tort Claim Act Office,
alleging wrongful acts by an employee of the New York
State Comptroller and Local Retirement System.
SAppx84. In 2017, the Director of the DOJ Tort Branch
sent a letter denying Mr. Owens’s claim. SAppx84 (“DOJ
Letter”).
In 2023, Mr. Owens filed a complaint in the Court of
Federal Claims related to both the Second Circuit’s denial
of leave to file an appeal and the DOJ Letter. SAppx9–34.
In 2024, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr.
Owens’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
SAppx1–8. The Court of Federal Claims found the
complaint mostly contained “unintelligible” claims against
the Second Circuit denial and the DOJ Letter. SAppx4.
1 “SAppx” refers to the supplemental appendix
accompanying the Appellee’s responding brief.
Case: 24-1883 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 12/13/2024

-- 2 of 5 --

OWENS v. US 3
From these claims, the Court of Federal Claims discerned
several claims alleging violation of the Due Process and
Equal Protection clauses. Id. The court decided such
claims do not mandate payment of money and thus fall
outside the court’s jurisdiction. Id. (citing Smith v. United
States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). The court
then characterized Mr. Owens’s remaining claims as
alleging “takings” for which Mr. Owens was owed just
compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Id.
Specifically, the Court of Federal Claims characterized Mr.
Owens’s claims as alleging that two actions were takings:
the Second Circuit order denying Mr. Owens’s appeal and
the DOJ Letter. SAppx4–8.
The Court of Federal Claims first addressed Mr.
Owens’s claim that the Second Circuit order denying his
proposed appeal was a taking. SAppx4–7. The Court of
Federal Claims determined there is no legal support for Mr.
Owens’s assertion that judicially imposed sanctions are
takings. SAppx6. Further, the court determined it cannot
review decisions of an Article III court. SAppx5–6 (citing
Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Next, the Court of Federal Claims addressed Mr.
Owens’s two takings claims, to the extent they were
directed to certain individuals: the Second Circuit clerk,
the New York employee, or the DOJ Director. SAppx6;
SAppx8. The Court of Federal Claims determined the
Tucker Act does not grant it jurisdiction over suits against
individual federal or state officials. SAppx6 (citing Brown
v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and 28
U.S.C. § 1491(a)); SAppx8 (citing United States v.
Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) and Brown, 105 F.3d at
624).
Lastly, the court determined Mr. Owens filed his
complaint after the deadlines of the relevant statutes of
limitations. SAppx6–7. Claims within the Court of
Federal Claims’ jurisdiction must be filed within six years
Case: 24-1883 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 12/13/2024

-- 3 of 5 --

OWENS v. US 4
after a claim first accrues, and tort claims against the
United States must be filed within six months of notice of
agency action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2501, 2401. Here, Mr. Owens’s
complaint was filed with the Court of Federal Claims on
February 27, 2023, well beyond the six-year and six-month
statutory deadlines. SAppx9–34. As such, the court found
that it lacks jurisdiction. SAppx6–7.
Mr. Owens timely appeals, and we have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
DISCUSSION
“We review de novo a grant or denial of a motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.” Hopi Tribe v. United
States, 782 F.3d 662, 666 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).
Moreover, a “plaintiff bears the burden of establishing
subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the
evidence.” Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. v. United
States, 956 F.3d 1328, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation
omitted). A “pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded,
must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citation omitted). Still, pro se plaintiffs
are bound to jurisdictional requirements. Kelley v. Sec’y,
U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Mr. Owens raises no new issues on appeal. He mainly
reiterates arguments from his complaint below related to
due process and takings. Appellant Informal Br. 1;
Appellant Informal Reply Br. 1, 4.
We agree with the Court of Federal Claims that it lacks
jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over claims under the
Due Process and Equal Protection clauses because those
clauses are not money-mandating. SAppx4; see Smith, 709
F.3d at 1116. We also agree with the Court of Federal
Claims that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Mr.
Owens’s takings claims against the Second Circuit because
the Court of Federal Claims may not review the actions of
Case: 24-1883 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 12/13/2024

-- 4 of 5 --

OWENS v. US 5
Article III courts. SAppx6; see Joshua, 17 F.3d at 380.
Likewise, the Court of Federal Claims properly found that
it lacked jurisdiction over the takings claims against
individual federal employees. SAppx6; see Brown, 105 F.3d
at 624. The Court of Federal Claims was correct to find
that it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Owens’s claim against
the DOJ for denying his Federal Tort Claims Act claim.
SAppx7; see 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (the Court of Federal
Claims may not “render judgment upon any claim against
the United States . . . sounding in tort.”). Thus, the Court
of Federal Claims properly found that it lacked jurisdiction
over all claims of Mr. Owens’s complaint.
We also agree that Mr. Owens’s complaint was filed
after relevant statutory deadlines had run. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2401, 2501. Mr. Owens has not identified and nor do we
discern any error in the court’s decision to dismiss his
complaint.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Owens’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons stated, we
affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of Mr.
Owens’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1883 Document: 16 Page: 5 Filed: 12/13/2024

-- 5 of 5 --