Michael Anthony Radogna v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MICHAEL ANTHONY RADOGNA,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1811
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-00442-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.
______________________
Decided: October 4, 2022
______________________
MICHAEL A NTHONY RADOGNA, Easton, PA, pro se.
G EOFFREY MARTIN L ONG, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, STEVEN J OHN G ILLINGHAM ,
P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY .
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 22-1811 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 10/04/2022

-- 1 of 7 --

RADOGNA v. US 2
Michael Radogna appeals the United States Court of
Federal Claims’ dismissal of his complaint for lack of juris-
diction. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On April 4, 2022, Mr. Radogna filed a pro se complaint
in the Court of Federal Claims. SAppx. 7–9.1 He alleged
that his “Constitutional rights . . . have been violated by
the United States by not monitoring nor directing oversight
upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s actions” relating
to a case involving the Pennsylvania Catholic Diocese and
allegations of child sexual abuse. SAppx. 8. Mr. Radogna
also alleged the United States violated his rights by “not
monitoring nor directing oversight of . . . the Secretary of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,” and requested that
the court investigate the Secretary’s “background and po-
litical connections.” Id. As for alleging jurisdiction of the
Court of Federal Claims, Mr. Radogna cited “Constitu-
tional violations, [e]quality under the [l]aw violations,
[d]iscrimination upon [his] class of community victimized
citizens,” as well as 42 U.S.C. § 5106a. SAppx. 7.
The Court of Federal Claims liberally construed
Mr. Radogna’s complaint to include several categories of
arguments but concluded it did not have jurisdiction to
hear any of them. Accordingly, the trial court sua sponte
dismissed Mr. Radogna’s complaint under Rule 12(h)(3) of
the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims. Radogna
v. United States, 159 Fed. Cl. 447 (2022) (Dismissal Order).
Mr. Radogna appealed. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
“Either party, or the court sua sponte, may challenge
the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction at any time.” Walby
1 “SAppx.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed
by the Government.
Case: 22-1811 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 10/04/2022

-- 2 of 7 --

RADOGNA v. US 3
v. United States, 144 Fed. Cl. 1, 5 (2019) (citing Arbaugh
v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006)). The rules of the
Court of Federal Claims require the court to dismiss an ac-
tion if “the court determines at any time that it lacks sub-
ject-matter jurisdiction.” R. Ct. Fed. Cl. 12(h)(3). We
review the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of a com-
plaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Cre-
ative Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. United States, 989 F.3d 955, 961
(Fed. Cir. 2021). We construe pro se filings like Mr. Ra-
dogna’s liberally, but that does not alleviate Mr. Radogna’s
burden to establish jurisdiction. Henke v. United States, 60
F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Minehan v. United States,
75 Fed. Cl. 249, 253 (2007).
The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited juris-
diction, meaning it can hear only certain types of legal
claims.2 Here, even broadly interpreting Mr. Radogna’s
complaint, the Court of Federal Claims determined none of
his arguments were of the type that the court has the power
to adjudicate, and thus that it was required to dismiss his
complaint. We agree and affirm.
The Court of Federal Claims construed Mr. Radogna’s
complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 5106a, a
provision of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
2 Specifically, the Court of Federal Claims is primar-
ily authorized to hear money claims founded upon the Con-
stitution, federal statutes, executive regulations, or
contracts with the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1491 pro-
vides that the court also has jurisdiction over claims for
just compensation for the taking of private property under
the Fifth Amendment, requests for the refund of federal
taxes, claims regarding military and civilian pay, and
claims for damages for the government’s breaches of con-
tract. The court also has jurisdiction over bid protests in-
volving government contracts, vaccine compensation,
claims of patent and copyright infringement against the
United States, and certain suits brought by Indian tribes.
Case: 22-1811 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 10/04/2022

-- 3 of 7 --

RADOGNA v. US 4
Act, and various Constitutional provisions. Dismissal Or-
der, 159 Fed. Cl. at 448. On appeal, Mr. Radogna reasserts
these claims and also raises a new claim based on 18 U.S.C.
§ 242. Appellant’s Br. 2, 6–7.3 We address each of these
claims in turn.
We turn first to the court’s determination that Mr. Ra-
dogna’s § 5106a claim was not within its jurisdiction. For
the Court of Federal Claims to have jurisdiction over a
claim, the statute upon which the claim is based must man-
date that the Government make a monetary payment to
the person making the claim; in other words, the statute
must be money mandating. See Fisher v. United States,
402 F.3d 1167, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[T]he absence of a
money-mandating source [is] fatal to the court’s jurisdic-
tion under the Tucker Act.”); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1).
The Court of Federal Claims properly determined that
§ 5106a is not money mandating. Dismissal Order, 159
Fed. Cl. at 449–50. We agree that § 5106a—which gener-
ally concerns “[g]rants to States for child abuse or neglect
prevention and treatment programs”—nowhere provides a
right to monetary damages for an individual. In other
words, as the Court of Federal Claims explained, § 5106a
“cannot be fairly interpreted as creating an individual’s en-
titlement to money damages for any violation of the provi-
sions therein.” Dismissal Order, 159 Fed. Cl. at 450.
Accordingly, the court correctly determined it did not have
jurisdiction to consider this claim.
We turn next to the trial court’s dismissal of Mr. Ra-
dogna’s constitutional claims for lack of jurisdiction. We
have held that the clauses of the Constitution (including
the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privileges and
3 “Appellant’s Br. __” refers to pages in Mr. Ra-
dogna’s informal brief as numbered by operation of an elec-
tronic file viewing system.
Case: 22-1811 Document: 33 Page: 4 Filed: 10/04/2022

-- 4 of 7 --

RADOGNA v. US 5
Immunities Clauses) are not sources of substantive law
that create the right to money damages, i.e., are not money
mandating. See U.S. CONST . art. IV, § 2, cl. 1 (lacking any
money mandating provision); LeBlanc v. United States, 50
F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that clauses of
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were insufficient
for jurisdiction “because they do not mandate payment of
money by the government”); United States v. Connolly, 716
F.2d 882, 887 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the trial court
correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over
Mr. Radogna’s constitutional claims, as those provisions
are not money mandating.
On appeal, Mr. Radogna cites 18 U.S.C. § 242 for the
first time. Appellant’s Br. 2, 6–7. This is a criminal statute
proscribing the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or im-
munities” based on alienage or race. § 242. Mr. Radogna
also cites on appeal to “Pennsylvania’s commonwealth doc-
uments law,” Appellant’s Br. 2 (cleaned up), which seems
to implicate laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
As an initial matter, because Mr. Radogna “did not raise
th[ese claims] before the Court of Federal Claims, [they
are] waived on appeal.” San Carlos Apache Tribe v. United
States, 639 F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Even if Mr. Radogna had raised these claims before the
Court of Federal Claims, that court would lack jurisdiction
to consider them. As it explained in its decision, the Court
of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over claims in-
volving “criminal decisions, state court actions, or direct ac-
tions by state agencies or officials.” Dismissal Order, 159
Fed. Cl. at 449; see also Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d
378, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming dismissal of complaint
alleging violation of criminal statutes, because the Court of
Federal Claims has no jurisdiction to adjudicate claims un-
der the criminal code). Similarly, the Court of Federal
Claims does not have jurisdiction over state law claims.
Souders v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth., 497 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (“Claims founded on state law are [] outside the
Case: 22-1811 Document: 33 Page: 5 Filed: 10/04/2022

-- 5 of 7 --

RADOGNA v. US 6
scope of the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Federal
Claims.”); see also Lawton v. United States, 621 F. App’x
671, 672 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The Court of Federal Claims
lacks jurisdiction over states, state officials, and state
agencies.”) (citing United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584,
588 (1941)). Thus, even if Mr. Radogna had raised these
claims before the Court of Federal Claims, that court would
have been required to dismiss them for lack of jurisdiction.
Finally, on appeal, Mr. Radogna argues that he should
have been allowed to file a post-judgment amended com-
plaint. Appellant’s Br. 2. The Court of Federal Claims re-
jected Mr. Radogna’s motion to amend his complaint
because, among other reasons, he failed to attach a copy of
his proposed amended complaint and thus the court could
not evaluate whether amendment would be helpful.
SAppx. 10.
We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to amend
for an abuse of discretion. Steffen v. United States, 995
F.3d 1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021). In this case, Mr. Radogna
did not file a proposed amended complaint, and his motion
stated only that he sought “to amend the complaint to con-
form it to omissions and[/]or defects in it, or not in it, as
originally provided.” SAppx. 11. Because Mr. Radogna did
not identify any “specific amendments that would cure the
. . . deficiencies” in his complaint, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in declining to consider it. Jackson v.
United States, 664 F. App’x 922, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see
also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (identifying
“futility of amendment” as a basis for denying leave to
amend). Furthermore, for the reasons described above, the
Court of Federal Claims correctly determined that it did
not have jurisdiction to consider Mr. Radogna’s claims,
even giving a broad reading to what he alleged in his com-
plaint. We do not see how amendment would overcome
these jurisdictional defects, and thus we affirm the court’s
denial of leave to amend.
Case: 22-1811 Document: 33 Page: 6 Filed: 10/04/2022

-- 6 of 7 --

RADOGNA v. US 7
We have considered Mr. Radogna’s remaining argu-
ments in his briefing and various letters and other docu-
ments filed by Mr. Radogna (see ECF Nos. 26, 29, 30, and
31) and find them unpersuasive.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the Court of
Federal Claims’ dismissal of Mr. Radogna’s complaint.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 22-1811 Document: 33 Page: 7 Filed: 10/04/2022

-- 7 of 7 --