Adaeze Nwosu v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ADAEZE NWOSU,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1178
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-01436-PSH, Judge Philip S. Hadji.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
The United States moves to summarily affirm the final
judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dis-
missing Adaeze Nwosu’s complaint. Ms. Nwosu moves for
summary reversal and for leave to proceed in forma pau-
peris. We grant the United States’s motion.
Ms. Nwosu brought this suit at the Court of Federal
Claims alleging various judges and court officials
Case: 25-1178 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 02/04/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

NWOSU v. US 2
“breached their oaths of office” and “violated their legal
duty by jettisoning the plaintiff’s 14th [A]mendment right
for a fair hearing” amounting to “a breach of contract.”
ECF No. 5 at 14. In October 2024, the Court of Federal
Claims dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and
entered final judgment. Ms. Nwosu timely moved for re-
consideration, which the Court of Federal Claims denied on
October 22, 2024. Ms. Nwosu now appeals, and the gov-
ernment moves for summary disposition.
Summary affirmance is appropriate when judgment on
appeal “is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no sub-
stantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal ex-
ists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir.
1994). The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, limits the juris-
diction of the Court of Federal Claims to claims of money
damages against the United States on sources of substan-
tive law that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating com-
pensation by the Federal Government.” United States v.
Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) (citation omitted).
Here, the Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct it
lacked jurisdiction.
Because Tucker Act “jurisdiction extends only to con-
tracts either express or implied in fact, and not to claims
on contracts implied in law,” Hercules Inc. v. United States,
516 U.S. 417, 423 (1996), this court has repeatedly made
clear that the Court of Federal Claims does not have juris-
diction over “any alleged breach-of-contract claim based on
an oath of office or obligation to uphold the Constitution.”
Kaetz v. United States, No. 2022-1812, 2022 WL 14813714,
at *2 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 26, 2022); see also Drake v. United
States, 792 F. App’x 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
The Court of Federal Claims was likewise clearly cor-
rect that the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of
the Fourteenth Amendment do not mandate the payment
of money by the government for violations. See Smith v.
United States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The
Case: 25-1178 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 02/04/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

NWOSU v. US 3
law is well settled that the Due Process clauses of both the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not mandate the
payment of money and thus do not provide a cause of action
under the Tucker Act.”); LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d
1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The United States’s motion is granted. The judg-
ment of the Court of Federal Claims is summarily affirmed.
(2) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
is denied.
(3) All other pending motions are denied.
(4) Each party shall bear its own costs.
February 4, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-1178 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 02/04/2025

-- 3 of 3 --