Louis A. Banks, and, D. B., Aminor Child v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LOUIS A. BANKS, AND, D. B., A MINOR CHILD,
Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________

2020-1039
______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:19-cv-00334-LKG, Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby.
______________________

O R D E R
______________________

P
ER CURIAM
Louis A. Banks and D.B., his minor child, (“Banks”)
have previously unsuccessfully invoked the jurisdiction of
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (“Superior
Court”) and the United States Court of Federal Claims
(“Claims Court”) seeking damages for injuries allegedly
suffered by D.B., primarily stemming from an incident in-
volving alleged actions by school employees in the District
of Columbia.
Case: 20-1039 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 04/13/2020

BANKS v. UNITED STATES
2
In the Superior Court, the United States failed to an-
swer the summons issued to it. But because Banks did not
specify the nature of his complaint, the Superior Court dis-
missed his complaint without prejudice. Banks v. District
of Columbia, No. 2017-CA-006401 (D.C. Super. Ct. Sept.
19, 2017).
Banks brought suit in the Claims Court against vari-
ous officials in the District of Columbia and nominally
against the United States seeking monetary damages for
the alleged harm to D.B. Banks v. United States, No. 1:17-
cv-00808 (Fed. Cl. Jun. 14, 2017). His complaint failed to
identify claims against the United States, and because the
Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over the other individu-
ally named defendants, his complaint was dismissed with-
out prejudice by the Claims Court. Banks appealed the
ruling of the Claims Court to this court, and we affirmed
the judgment dismissing his claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Banks v. United States, 726 Fed. App’x 823, 825 (Fed. Cir.
2018)
Banks brought a second suit in the Claims Court, again
seeking monetary damages for the alleged harm to D.B.
Banks v. United States, No. 1-19-cv-00334 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 28,
2019). This second suit is the subject of this appeal. The
Claims Court interpreted Banks’ complaint to challenge
the failure of the United States to appear in the dismissed
Superior Court proceeding as a violation of 20 U.S.C.
§ 7101 (addressing education as part of the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools and Communities Act) and 28 U.S.C. § 2508
(addressing government counterclaims brought in the
Claims Court). The complaint also referred to the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and alleged that the U.S. Departments
of Education and Justice are responsible for enforcement of
federal civil rights laws. These references were treated by
the Claims Court as asserting a violation of federal civil
rights arising from D.B.’s treatment in the District of Co-
lumbia schools. Rather than answer the complaint, the
United States moved to dismiss the complaint for want of
Case: 20-1039 Document: 47 Page: 2 Filed: 04/13/2020

BANKS v. UNITED STATES
3
jurisdiction. Banks filed a motion for default judgment
against the United States based on its failure to answer the
complaint.
The Claims Court granted the motion to dismiss and
denied as moot Banks’ motion for a default judgment. The
Claims Court explained in its opinion why the court lacked
jurisdiction over Banks’ complaint. To the extent the com-
plaint raised allegations of violation of federal civil rights
law, the Claims Court explained that its precedent speci-
fies that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over such
claims, citing Jones v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 92, 98
(2012). Additional precedent supports this conclusion of
the Claims Court. See Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d
621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding the Claims Court lacks
jurisdiction over a Bivens claim, a cause of action for money
damages to remedy constitutional violations caused by gov-
ernment officials acting under color of federal law); Wild-
man v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 494, 495 (1993) (citing
Anderson v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 178, 179 n.2 (1990),
aff’d, 937 F.2d 623 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (table) ( finding no juris-
diction over civil rights claims brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 or 1986 because jurisdiction over such
claims resides exclusively in the U.S. district courts)).
With regard to Banks’ argument that the United States
failed to appear in the Superior Court action, the Claims
Court explained that where the plaintiff relies on a statute
to support a claim the plaintiff must show that the named
statute provides for monetary relief for its violation in or-
der to invoke the jurisdiction of the Claims Court. The
Claims Court noted that the two federal statutes cited by
Banks to support his claim arising out of the Superior
Court case did not appear related to his claim, but even if
they were related, neither of the statutes provide for mon-
etary relief. Finally, because the Claims Court determined
that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims
averred in Banks’ complaint, it ruled that Banks’ motion
for default judgment is moot.
Case: 20-1039 Document: 47 Page: 3 Filed: 04/13/2020

BANKS v. UNITED STATES
4
Banks timely appealed from the final judgment of the
Claims Court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(3). We review the Claims Court’s jurisdictional
ruling de novo as a question of law. Kam-Almaz v. United
States, 682 F.3d 1364, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
We carefully reviewed the arguments Banks presents
to this court and the opinion of the Claims Court dismiss-
ing his complaint for want of jurisdiction. The Claims
Court correctly held that Banks failed to present a claim
over which the Claims Court has subject matter jurisdic-
tion. Banks appears to contend on appeal that the Claims
Court issued a default judgment in his favor, but the court
merely granted Banks leave to file a motion for default
judgment, a motion the court ultimately denied. We find
no error in the judgment of the Claims Court, which we ac-
cordingly affirm. A number of motions filed by Banks re-
lating to our review of his appeal remain pending. All such
motions are denied. The Order of the Claims Court dis-
missing the complaint is
AFFIRMED
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1)The Order of the Claims Court dismissing the com-
plaint is affirmed.
(2) Banks’ outstanding motions are denied.
April 13, 2020
Date
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 20-1039 Document: 47 Page: 4 Filed: 04/13/2020