Mark McCormick v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MARK MCCORMICK,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-2314
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-00539-MHS, Judge Matthew H. Solomson.
______________________
Decided: March 8, 2024
______________________
MARK MCC ORMICK, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
MATNEY ELIZABETH ROLFE, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. B OYNTON, CLAUDIA B URKE, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
Before T ARANTO, HUGHES , and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit
Judges.
Case: 23-2314 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 03/08/2024

-- 1 of 7 --

MCCORMICK v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Mark McCormick, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint
against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims.
Complaint, McCormick v. United States, No. 23-cv-00539
(Fed. Cl. Apr. 13, 2023), ECF No. 1 [hereinafter “Claims
Court Docket”]. After staying proceedings to give it time to
determine whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction over
the case, the Claims Court concluded that it lacked juris-
diction and dismissed Mr. McCormick’s complaint and en-
tered final judgment. McCormick v. United States, No. 23-
539C, 2023 WL 4311650, at *3 (Fed. Cl. July 3, 2023)
(Claims Court Decision); Judgment, Claims Court Docket
(July 10, 2023), ECF No. 10. Mr. McCormick appeals. Be-
cause we determine that the Claims Court did not have
subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. McCormick’s com-
plaint, we affirm the Claims Court’s decision.
I
In his complaint, Mr. McCormick alleged a number of
injuries suffered by him and his now-deceased brother Mo-
ses and pointed to several unsuccessful cases he (alone or
with his brother) previously brought, citing McCormick v.
Browne, No. 17-cv-00595, 2017 WL 8790950 (S.D. Ohio
Dec. 27, 2017), aff’d, No. 18-3004, 2018 WL 11327092 (6th
Cir. Sept. 18, 2018); Order, McCormick v. Dreamy Draw
Justice Court, No. 22-cv-01446 (D. Ariz. Nov. 10, 2022),
ECF No. 18; Order, McCormick v. Multi State Lottery As-
sociation, No. 23-cv-00525 (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2023), ECF
No. 5; Notices of Voluntary Dismissal, McCormick v.
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Divi-
sion, No. 19-cv-03329 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 9, 2020 and Nov. 20,
2020), ECF Nos. 219, 225. In the present case, Mr. McCor-
mick alleged that the United States is liable for actions of
individuals (some of whom were federal officials) causing
his lack of success in such cases, characterizing the actions
as tortious, actionable under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 and 18
U.S.C. §§ 241–42, and violative of the First and Fourteenth
Case: 23-2314 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 03/08/2024

-- 2 of 7 --

MCCORMICK v. US 3
Amendments to the United States Constitution. Com-
plaint at 1, 3–5, 9, Claims Court Docket (Apr. 13, 2023),
ECF No. 1. Mr. McCormick also alleged more generally
that the United States is liable for intentional and negli-
gent acts committed by Ohio state officials and federal of-
ficials that caused him to suffer damage to his business,
person, and property and ultimately resulted in the at-
tempted killing of him and the death of his brother. Id. at
5–9. Mr. McCormick sought compensatory damages of $75
billion and punitive damages. Id. at 1-1.
The Claims Court dismissed Mr. McCormick’s claims
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It explained that, to
the extent that the complaint suggested the assertion of
claims against individual federal officials or individual
state officials, the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over
such claims; and it also explained that it lacked jurisdiction
over the claims Mr. McCormick asserted against the
United States—tort claims, state-law claims, statutory
claims, and particular constitutional claims. Claims Court
Decision, at *2–3. Mr. McCormick timely filed his appeal
on August 17, 2023, as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b)(1).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
II
We review whether the Claims Court possesses sub-
ject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Taylor v. United States,
959 F.3d 1081, 1086 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Biltmore Forest
Broadcasting FM, Inc. v. United States, 555 F.3d 1375,
1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
The jurisdiction of the Claims Court is “defined by the
Tucker Act, which gives the court authority to render judg-
ment on certain monetary claims against the United
States.” RadioShack Corp. v. United States, 566 F.3d 1358,
1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)). The
Tucker Act provides:
Case: 23-2314 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 03/08/2024

-- 3 of 7 --

MCCORMICK v. US 4
The United States Court of Federal Claims shall
have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any
claim against the United States founded either
upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or
any regulation of an executive department, or upon
any express or implied contract with the United
States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages
in cases not sounding in tort.
28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Importantly, although the Tucker
Act waives the sovereign immunity of the federal govern-
ment, it does not itself provide any substantive rights or
any right of action to obtain monetary relief for wrongs.
Accordingly, to invoke Claims Court jurisdiction pursuant
to the Tucker Act, “a plaintiff must identify a right to
money damages found in the Constitution, a statute or gov-
ernment regulation, or a contract.” Folden v. United
States, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see United
States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216–17 (1983). In other
words, for claims like those asserted here, a plaintiff, be-
sides identifying “the source of substantive law he relies
upon,” must show that the identified source of law “can
fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the
[f]ederal [g]overnment for the damages sustained.” Mitch-
ell, 463 U.S. at 216–17 (quoting United States v. Testan,
424 U.S. 392, 400 (1976)) (internal quotation marks omit-
ted). This requirement extends to pro se, as well as lawyer-
represented, plaintiffs. See Sanders v. United States, 252
F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Mr. McCormick’s complaint, if read generously, asserts
against the United States only tort claims, claims based on
state law, federal statutory claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–42, and constitutional claims under
Case: 23-2314 Document: 22 Page: 4 Filed: 03/08/2024

-- 4 of 7 --

MCCORMICK v. US 5
the First and Fourteenth Amendments.1 But Mr. McCor-
mick has not identified any claim within the Tucker Act.
Tort claims “are clearly outside the limited jurisdic-
tion” of the Claims Court, and claims “founded on state law
are also outside the scope of the limited jurisdiction” of the
Claims Court. Souders v. South Carolina Public Service
Authority, 497 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see 28
U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (reciting only federal-law sources of
rights and excluding cases “sounding in tort”); see also
Rick’s Mushroom Service, Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d
1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“The plain language of the
Tucker Act excludes from the [Claims Court’s] jurisdiction
claims sounding in tort.”).
The Tucker Act also does not cover Mr. McCormick’s
federal statutory claims. We have repeatedly affirmed
Claims Court rulings that the Tucker Act does not extend
to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even aside from the fact
that § 1983 is limited to persons acting under state or ter-
ritorial law, see Settles v. U.S. Parole Commission, 429 F.3d
1098, 1105–06 (D.C. Cir. 2005); see also Coleman v. United
States, 635 F. App’x 875, 878 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See Blass-
ingame v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 504, 505, aff’d, 73 F.3d
379 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1237 (1996); An-
derson v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 178, 179 n.2 (1990), aff’d,
937 F.2d 623 (Fed. Cir. 1991). A sufficient reason is that
1 Mr. McCormick, in this court, does not urge that he
may press claims against state officials or federal officials
under the Tucker Act—which extends only to “claim[s]
against the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (empha-
sis added); see United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588
(1941) (“[I]f the relief sought is against others than the
United States the suit as to them must be ignored as be-
yond the jurisdiction of the [Claims Court].”).
Case: 23-2314 Document: 22 Page: 5 Filed: 03/08/2024

-- 5 of 7 --

MCCORMICK v. US 6
Congress gave district courts (not the Claims Court) juris-
diction over § 1983 claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and juris-
diction under the “Tucker Act is displaced . . . when a law
assertedly imposing monetary liability on the United
States contains its own judicial remedies,” United States v.
Bormes, 568 U.S. 6, 12 (2012). The Claims Court also lacks
jurisdiction over Mr. McCormick’s claims under 18 U.S.C.
§§ 241–42. Title 18 of the United States Code is the crimi-
nal code, see 18 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and the Claims Court
“has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims whatsoever
under the federal criminal code.” Joshua v. United States,
17 F.3d 378, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Finally, the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over Mr.
McCormick’s constitutional claims. Neither the First
Amendment nor the Fourteenth Amendment mandate
compensation by the federal government (the latter also
applying to the States, not the federal government).
United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 887–88 (Fed. Cir.
1983) (“[T]he [F]irst [A]mendment, standing alone, cannot
be so interpreted to command the payment of money” and
“the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over [the plaintiff’s]
[F]irst [A]mendment claim.”); LeBlanc v. United States, 50
F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“None of [the Due Process
Clause or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment] is a sufficient basis for jurisdiction because
they do not mandate payment of money by the govern-
ment.”).2
2 In this court, in his Reply, Mr. McCormick asserts
that he claims a breach of contract, treating federal offi-
cials’ oath of office as constituting a contract between the
officials and the United States, under which he may claim
rights as a third-party beneficiary. In support of this seem-
ingly novel claim, he provides no authority and no reason-
ing to show satisfaction of the requirements for the
existence of a contract or for third-party-beneficiary status
Case: 23-2314 Document: 22 Page: 6 Filed: 03/08/2024

-- 6 of 7 --

MCCORMICK v. US 7
III
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of
Federal Claims is affirmed.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
AFFIRMED
allowing him to sue the United States. This claim was not
presented adequately previously and therefore is forfeited.
See, e.g., California Ridge Wind Energy LLC v. United
States, 959 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Bannum, Inc.
v. United States, 779 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Case: 23-2314 Document: 22 Page: 7 Filed: 03/08/2024

-- 7 of 7 --