Lloyd Goodnow v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LLOYD GOODNOW,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1841
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:21-cv-01883-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink.
______________________
Decided: November 15, 2022
______________________
L LOYD G OODNOW , SR., Morriston, FL, pro se.
MICHAEL D UANE AUSTIN, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by REGINALD T HOMAS BLADES , J R., BRIAN M.
BOYNTON, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY .
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, L OURIE and P ROST , Circuit
Judges.
Case: 22-1841 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 11/15/2022

-- 1 of 3 --

GOODNOW v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Lloyd Goodnow appeals a decision of the Court of Fed-
eral Claims dismissing his complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Because the Court
of Federal Claims properly dismissed Mr. Goodnow’s com-
plaint, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On October 19, 2021, Mr. Goodnow filed an amended
complaint against the United States for breach of contract.
S. Appx. 6–13. Mr. Goodnow alleged that a former con-
gressman had hired his company to gain information on
terrorist training camps. S. Appx. 11. The Court of Federal
Claims dismissed Mr. Goodnow’s amended complaint un-
der Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, determining
the complaint failed to sufficiently allege any of the essen-
tial elements of a contract with the United States. Mr.
Goodnow filed a motion for reconsideration, which the
Court of Federal Claims denied. Mr. Goodnow appeals. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review a decision of the Court of Federal Claims
dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim de novo.
Jones v. United States, 846 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2017). In reviewing the dismissal, we must accept all well-
pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable
inferences in Mr. Goodnow’s favor. Id. An express or im-
plied-in-fact contract with the United States requires: “(1)
mutuality of intent, (2) consideration, (3) an unambiguous
offer and acceptance, and (4) ‘actual authority’ on the part
of the government’s representative to bind the government
in contract.” Hanlin v. United States, 316 F.3d 1325, 1328
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting City of Cincinnati v. United
States, 153 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
The Court of Federal Claims did not err in dismissing
Mr. Goodnow’s amended complaint. Mr. Goodnow’s
Case: 22-1841 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 11/15/2022

-- 2 of 3 --

GOODNOW v. US 3
amended complaint, even under a liberal construction, fails
to allege the elements of a binding contract with the United
States. Mr. Goodnow fails to allege that the former con-
gressman had the authority to bind the United States in
contract. Further, the amended complaint contains no de-
tails as to the essential terms of the purported agreement,
including what services Mr. Goodnow would provide or how
much the former congressman would pay for any services.
See Mod. Sys. Tech. Corp. v. United States, 979 F.2d 200,
202 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“In the absence of contractual intent
or sufficiently definite terms, no contractual obligations
arise.”). As the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed
Mr. Goodnow’s complaint for failure to state a claim, we
affirm.1
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
1 Mr. Goodnow also argues the Court of Federal
Claims violated his due process rights because Mr. Good-
now did not have access to a document listing the deadline
for the government to file its reply motion, causing Mr.
Goodnow to file erroneous motions. Appellant’s Informal
Br. at 4, 6–7. Due process requires notice and a fair oppor-
tunity to be heard. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill,
470 U.S. 532, 546 (1985). Mr. Goodnow has not shown how
filing erroneous motions harmed his ability to adjudicate
his claim or any harm he suffered as a result. Thus, Mr.
Goodnow has not set forth a cognizable due process claim.
Case: 22-1841 Document: 34 Page: 3 Filed: 11/15/2022

-- 3 of 3 --