David Hawthorne v. Secretary of the Army

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-11238
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
DAVID HAWTHORNE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 5:21-cv-01278-LCB
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11238 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2023 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11238
Before J ORDAN, B RASHER , and B LACK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
David Hawthorne appeals
pro se from the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint, brought under the Little Tucker Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), in which he sought to rescind a settlement
agreement he entered into with the Army. He asserts the district
court erred in finding that it did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate
his claim for equitable relief under the Little Tucker Act.
We have an obligation to review
sua sponte whether we
have jurisdiction at any point in the appellate process.
Reaves v.
Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 717 F.3d 886, 905 (11th Cir. 2013). We
must resolve jurisdictional issues before addressing the merits of
the underlying claims and may not exercise hypothetical jurisdic-
tion to decide a case on the merits.
Friends of the Everglades v.
E.P.A., 699 F.3d 1280, 1288 (11th Cir. 2012).
The Little Tucker Act “grants concurrent jurisdiction to
both U.S. district courts and the Court of Federal Claims for con-
tractual claims against the United States not exceeding $10,000.”
See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2);
Roberts v. United States, 242 F.3d 1065,
1067–68 (Fed. Cir. 2001). It does not create a cause of action against
the federal government; rather, it waives sovereign immunity for
the claims described therein. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). The Federal
Circuit, however, has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from final
judgments of district courts in cases brought, in whole or in part,
USCA11 Case: 22-11238 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2023 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

22-11238 Opinion of the Court 3
under the Little Tucker Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2);
Parker v. King,
935 F.2d 1174, 1178 (11th Cir. 1991).
Whenever an appeal is filed in a court that lacks jurisdiction
over the appeal, that court “shall, if it is in the interest of justice,
transfer such action or appeal to any other such court . . . in which
the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was
filed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. When “[i]t is clear from the record that
the district court’s jurisdiction was based at least in part on 28
U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), . . . this [C]ourt shall not dismiss the appeal but
shall transfer it to the Federal Circuit.”
Oliveira v. United States,
734 F.2d 760, 762 (11th Cir. 1984);
see also Parker, 935 F.2d at 1178-
79 (transferring appeal to the Federal Circuit).
Hawthorne brought his claim, in part, under the Little
Tucker Act. Accordingly, we conclude that, under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2), we lack jurisdiction, and transfer this appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
TRANSFERRED.
USCA11 Case: 22-11238 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --