William Joseph Mooney, Joni Therese Mooney v. United States

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________

WILLIAM JOSEPH MOONEY, JONI THERESE
MOONEY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________

2020-1075
______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:19-cv-00987-PEC, Judge Patricia E. Campbell-
Smith.
______________________

Decided: October 7, 2020
______________________

W
ILLIAM JOSEPH MOONEY, JONI THERESE MOONEY, Lit-
tle Falls, MN, pro se.

RICHARD L. PARKER, Tax Division, United States De-
partment of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appel-
lee. Also represented by JACOB EARL CHRISTENSEN,
R
ICHARD E. ZUCKERMAN.
______________________

Case: 20-1075 Document: 53 Page: 1 Filed: 10/07/2020

MOONEY v. UNITED STATES
2
Before LOURIE, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
William Mooney and his wife, Joni Mooney (“the
Mooneys”), appeal from a decision of the United States
Court of Federal Claims (the “Claims Court”) dismissing
their complaint against the United States for lack of sub-
ject matter jurisdiction, Mooney v. United States, No. 19-
987C, 2019 WL 4052488 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 27, 2019) (“Decision
I”), and denying their motion for reconsideration. Mooney
v. United States, No. 19-987C, 2019 WL 4861104 (Fed. Cl.
Oct. 2, 2019) (“Decision II”). Because the Claims Court did
not err in its dismissal and subsequent denial of reconsid-
eration, we affirm.
B
ACKGROUND
In July 2016, the United States filed suit against the
Mooneys in the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Minnesota, seeking “to reduce federal tax and pen-
alty assessments to judgment and enforce federal tax liens”
against the Mooneys’ property. United States v. Mooney,
No. 16-cv-02547 (D. Minn. July 28, 2016), ECF No. 1 at 1.
The district court ruled against the Mooneys and author-
ized the sale of their personal residence to satisfy their out-
standing tax liabilities. United States v. Mooney, No. 16-
cv-02547, 2018 WL 2215521, at *7 (D. Minn. May 15, 2018).
In March 2019, the Mooneys appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit but withdrew their
appeal shortly thereafter. United States v. Mooney, No. 19-
1533, 2019 WL 4296301 (8th Cir. May 15, 2019) (granting
motion to dismiss).
On July 9, 2019, the Mooneys filed a complaint against
the United States in the Claims Court. Appx. 32. The
Mooneys appear to have alleged that the district judge and
magistrate judge misled them and denied them access to
the courts by falsely claiming that the District Court of
Minnesota was a genuine Article III court, when it was in
Case: 20-1075 Document: 53 Page: 2 Filed: 10/07/2020

MOONEY v. UNITED STATES
3
fact an Article I Section 8 court or “faux” court that had no
jurisdiction to authorize the sale of their real property. Id.
at 38–44. In addition, the Mooneys accused the district
judge and the government’s attorney of misconduct, includ-
ing the creation of false documents and spoliation of evi-
dence. Id. at 43–44. As relief, the Mooneys requested
abrogation of the district court’s order authorizing the sale
of their real property and a “real [t]rial.” Id. at 45.
The Claims Court dismissed the Mooneys’ case, sua
sponte, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Decision I,
2019 WL 4052488, at *3. The court explained that pursu-
ant to the Tucker Act, it had jurisdiction only over specified
categories of complaints and none of the Mooneys’ stated
claims fell within the confines of the Act. First, the court
determined that the gravamen of the Mooneys’ complaint
was their dissatisfaction regarding the proceedings in the
District Court of Minnesota, but the Tucker Act does not
confer jurisdiction upon the Claims Court to consider the
merits of a collateral attack on a district court decision. Id.
at *2. Second, to the extent the Mooneys intended to allege
that the actions of the district judge, magistrate judge, or
government attorney “violated their constitutional rights,”
the court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to review
complaints concerning violations of plaintiffs’ civil rights
by federal officials. Id. at *3. Third, the court held that it
could not consider the Mooneys’ fraud claims because it did
not have jurisdiction over any claims sounding in tort. Id.
The Claims Court further denied the Mooneys’ motion for
reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59 of the Rules of the
United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). Decision
II, 2019 WL 4861104, at *2.
The Mooneys appealed the dismissal. We have juris-
diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D
ISCUSSION
We review a dismissal by the Claims Court for lack of
jurisdiction de novo. Tex. Peanut Farmers v. United States,
Case: 20-1075 Document: 53 Page: 3 Filed: 10/07/2020

MOONEY v. UNITED STATES
4
409 F.3d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Frazer v.
United States, 288 F.3d 1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We
review the Claims Court’s denial of a motion for reconsid-
eration under Rule 59 for an abuse of discretion. Renda
Marine, Inc. v. United States, 509 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007).
On appeal, the Mooneys assert, among other allega-
tions previously raised in the Claims Court, that the Dis-
trict Court of Minnesota is not a true Article III federal
court and that their complaint was not a “collateral attack”
because the district court’s judgment was a “legal nullity.”
Appellant Br. 35–38 (quoting United States v. Bigford, 365
F.3d 859, 865 (10th Cir. 2004)). In addition, the Mooneys
assert that the Claims Court had jurisdiction over their
claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2515(a), which states that
“[t]he United States Court of Federal Claims may grant a
plaintiff a new trial on any ground established by rules of
common law or equity applicable as between private par-
ties.” Id. at 42–43. With regard to the Claims Court’s de-
nial of their motion for reconsideration, the Mooneys argue
that the court “discount[ed]” the new evidence they raised
in their motion for reconsideration, including a citation of
two “[o]n-[p]oint cases,” decided decades before they filed
their complaint in the Claims Court. Id. at 43–44.
The government responds that the Mooneys’ brief
largely “rehash[es]” the collateral attacks against the dis-
trict court. Appellee Br. 20–21. The government further
asserts that the Claims Court did not have jurisdiction over
the Mooneys’ complaint pursuant to § 2515(a) because that
statute “applies to requests for a new trial in cases origi-
nating in the Claims Court and over which it has jurisdic-
tion under the Tucker Act, not in cases decided by other
courts.” Id. at 22–23. Additionally, the government states
that the Claims Court did not abuse its discretion in deny-
ing the Mooneys’ motion for reconsideration because the
Mooneys’ citation of decades-old cases did not constitute
newly discovered evidence. Id. at 26–27.
Case: 20-1075 Document: 53 Page: 4 Filed: 10/07/2020

MOONEY v. UNITED STATES
5
We agree with the government that the Claims Court
correctly dismissed the Mooneys’ case for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion in
denying the Mooneys’ motion for reconsideration. The
Mooneys’ complaint, which largely consisted of criticisms
regarding mistakes made by the district court and
allegations of misdeeds by various federal officials, was, in
essence, a collateral attack on the district court
proceedings. Accordingly, the Claims Court correctly held
that it did not have jurisdiction to review the Mooneys’
case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v.
United States, 862 F.3d 1370, 1384–85 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(“[T]he Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to review
the merits of a decision rendered by a federal district
court.”) (citing Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United States,
782 F.3d 1345, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Nor did the Claims
Court have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2515(a), which
applies to requests for a new trial in cases originating in
the Claims Court, rather than district courts. To hold
otherwise would allow plaintiffs to relitigate their claims
in the Claims Court if they were dissatisfied with the
district court proceedings. However, the Mooneys already
appealed to the Eighth Circuit, which was the proper route
of appeal, but they voluntarily withdrew their appeal.
To the extent that the Mooneys’ complaint can be char-
acterized as alleging violations of their constitutional
rights by federal officials or sounding in tort, we further
hold that the Claims Court correctly held that it lacked ju-
risdiction over those claims. The court’s jurisdiction under
the Tucker Act does not reach those types of claims. See
Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(“The Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims juris-
diction over suits against the United States, not against in-
dividual federal officials.”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a));
Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d
1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“The plain language of the
Tucker Act excludes from the Court of Federal Claims
Case: 20-1075 Document: 53 Page: 5 Filed: 10/07/2020

MOONEY v. UNITED STATES
6
jurisdiction claims sounding in tort.”). Finally, we agree
that the Claims Court did not abuse its discretion in deny-
ing the Mooneys’ motion for reconsideration. The Mooneys’
citation of cases decided decades before their complaint
was filed in the Claims Court is not “newly discovered” ev-
idence as required by RCFC 59. See Howard Hess Dental
Labs. Inc. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 252 (3d Cir.
2010) (“[N]ew evidence in this context means evidence that
a party could not earlier submit to the court because that
evidence was not previously available”); see also Biery v.
United States, 818 F.3d 704, 711 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
CONCLUSION
We have considered the Mooneys’ remaining argu-
ments but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we affirm the Claims Court’s dismissal of this case
and denial of the Mooneys’ motion for reconsideration.
AFFIRMED
Case: 20-1075 Document: 53 Page: 6 Filed: 10/07/2020