Somona Lofton v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SOMONA LOFTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1959
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-00727-EDK, Chief Judge Elaine Kaplan.
______________________
Decided: January 31, 2025
______________________
SOMONA MARIE L OFTON, Napa, CA, pro se.
MEREDYTH COHEN HAVASY , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ,
D OUGLAS K. M ICKLE.
______________________
Before STOLL , CLEVENGER , and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit
Judges.
Case: 24-1959 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 01/31/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

LOFTON v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Somona Lofton appeals the decision of the United
States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismiss-
ing her Complaint pursuant to Claims Court Rule 12(h)(3)
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Lofton v. United
States, No. 24-727, 2024 WL 2814551 (Fed. Cl. June 3,
2024). Because we agree that the Claims Court did not
have subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Lofton’s Com-
plaint, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In her Claims Court Complaint, Ms. Lofton alleges
that employees at Napa Valley College, a public commu-
nity college in California, “conspire[d] to defraud Govern-
ment Funds” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 by entering
“false records” in her financial aid account. SAppx 7–8.1
Ms. Lofton seeks $250,000 for emotional distress, home-
lessness, body pains, head pains, and for missing parenting
time. She also appears to seek a 10-year prison sentence
for the accused Napa Valley College employees.
The Claims Court dismissed Ms. Lofton’s Complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for at least four rea-
sons. First, the Claims Court stated that it had no juris-
diction because Ms. Lofton’s Complaint alleges no claims
against the United States. Second, if Ms. Lofton’s Com-
plaint is to be construed against Napa Valley College itself,
or against its employees within the scope of their employ-
ment, the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over suits
against states, local governments, their entities, or their
employees. Third, the Claims Court has no jurisdiction
over claims brought under the federal criminal code, such
as 18 U.S.C. § 371. And fourth, to the extent Ms. Lofton
1 SAppx refers to the Supplemental Appendix filed
with the Government’s Informal Brief.
Case: 24-1959 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 01/31/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

LOFTON v. US 3
alleges tort claims, the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to
hear tort claims.
Ms. Lofton timely appealed. We have jurisdiction un-
der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
On appeal, Ms. Lofton raises largely the same allega-
tions she raised before the Claims Court. For instance,
Ms. Lofton contests the dismissal of her Complaint, argu-
ing that the “[C]alifornia student aid commission . . . cre-
ate[d] accounts in students [sic] name to defraud funds.”
Appellant’s Informal Br. 5. Ms. Lofton requests that we in-
vestigate the California Student Aid Commission to deter-
mine why there is an account in her name that she
allegedly never created. Id. at 6. She also seeks $279,054
in damages. Id. at 3.
We review the Claims Court’s dismissal for lack of sub-
ject matter jurisdiction de novo. Adair v. United States,
497 F.3d 1244, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Under the Tucker
Act, the Claims Court has jurisdiction over “any claim
against the United States founded either upon the Consti-
tution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an exec-
utive 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). A plaintiff attempting to sue the United
States in the Claims Court first must “identify a substan-
tive right for money damages against the United States
separate from the Tucker Act itself” before the court can
address the claim’s merits. Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d
1091, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The United States is the only
proper defendant in the Claims Court. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1).
Here, we agree with the Claims Court that it did not
have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Ms. Lofton’s
Complaint because she fails to allege claims against the
Case: 24-1959 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 01/31/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

LOFTON v. US 4
United States. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584,
588 (1941). Broadly construed, Ms. Lofton’s allegations
against Napa Valley College, its employees, the state of
California, and private individuals do not fall within the
jurisdiction of the Claims Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
Similarly, to the extent Ms. Lofton attempts to allege tort
claims, the allegations fail because the Claims Court lacks
jurisdiction to hear tort claims. Brown v. United States,
105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Additionally,
Ms. Lofton has not established subject matter jurisdiction
because she alleges a violation of criminal statutes,
18 U.S.C. § 371; 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. See Appellant’s
Informal Br. 5; SAppx 7; Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d
378, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
CONCLUSION
We have considered Ms. Lofton’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons stated above,
the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over Ms. Lofton’s
claims, and properly dismissed the Complaint.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1959 Document: 32 Page: 4 Filed: 01/31/2025

-- 4 of 4 --