Anthony Romero Horn, Sr. v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ANTHONY ROMERO HORN, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1054
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-00509-MRS, Judge Molly R. Silfen.
______________________
Decided: June 7, 2024
______________________
ANTHONY ROMERO H ORN, SR., Bessemer, AL, pro se.
K ARA WESTERCAMP , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. B OYNTON, WILLIAM J AMES G RIMALDI, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
Case: 24-1054 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 06/07/2024

-- 1 of 5 --

HORN v. US 2
Before STOLL and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges, and
CECCHI, District Judge.1
P ER CURIAM .
Anthony Romero Horn, Sr. appeals from a final deci-
sion by the United States Court of Federal Claims dismiss-
ing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Horn v. United
States, No. 23-509 C, 2023 WL 6182544 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 22,
2023) (“Decision”). Because the Court of Federal Claims
properly dismissed the complaint, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Horn filed the present suit against the United
States in the Court of Federal Claims seeking monetary re-
lief from a District of Columbia family court order requir-
ing Mr. Horn to pay child support. In his complaint,
Mr. Horn raised several constitutional, criminal, and state
law claims alleging that: (1) “he was not properly served
papers by the court in his child support case”; (2) “his case
was overseen by a magistrate judge, who, [he] argues, [did]
not have the constitutional authority to rule on [his] case”;
and (3) “various local and municipal staff members com-
mitted criminal acts” against him. Decision, 2023 WL
6182544, at *1. The Court of Federal Claims concluded it
lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Horn’s complaint as his claims
were not filed within the six-year statute of limitations as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 2501. Further, the court explained
that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over all of Mr.
Horn’s claims, including (1) his claims alleging criminal
conduct; (2) his claims against defendants other than the
federal government; and (3) his claims under the First,
1 Honorable Claire C. Cecchi, District Judge, United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting
by designation.
Case: 24-1054 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 06/07/2024

-- 2 of 5 --

HORN v. US 3
Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which are not
money-mandating.
Mr. Horn appeals. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for
lack of jurisdiction de novo. Waltner v. United States,
679 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Any “[f]indings of
fact relating to jurisdictional issues are reviewed for clear
error.” Roman v. United States, 61 F.4th 1366, 1370
(Fed. Cir. 2023).
The Tucker Act provides that: “Every claim of which
the United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction
shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed within
six years after such claim first accrues.” 28 U.S.C. § 2501.
The statute of limitations is a jurisdictional requirement
that cannot be waived. See John R. Sand & Gravel Co.
v. United States, 457 F.3d 1345, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
After analyzing Mr. Horn’s arguments, we conclude
that the trial court did not err in holding that Mr. Horn’s
claims are time-barred under the Tucker Act. Mr. Horn’s
complaint stems from his “child support order that was en-
tered sometime before November 21, 2008,” and the result-
ing loss of his vehicle in 2014 “allegedly due to his inability
to satisfy his child support obligations.” Decision, 2023 WL
6182544, at *4. The six-year time-limit of § 2501 “com-
mences to run when claimants know or should know of
their potential claims” and, here, more than six years have
passed from the time Mr. Horn knew or should have known
of these claims to the filing of Mr. Horn’s complaint. She-
monsky v. United States, 215 F.3d 1340, 1999 WL 542849,
at *1 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citation omitted); see also Shoshone
Indian Tribe of Wind River Rsrv., Wyo. v. United States,
672 F.3d 1021, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[U]nder § 2501, a
claim does not accrue until all the events which fix the
Case: 24-1054 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 06/07/2024

-- 3 of 5 --

HORN v. US 4
government’s alleged liability have occurred and the plain-
tiff was or should have been aware of their existence.” (in-
ternal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Further,
to the extent that Mr. Horn argues the Court of Federal
claims erred by not considering that he was unaware of the
six-year time limit, the statute of limitations is not tolled
by a party’s lack of knowledge of the time limit. See Me-
nominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 726 F.2d 718,
720–21 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“It is settled . . . that 28 U.S.C.
§ 2501 is not tolled by the [parties’] ignorance of their legal
rights.” (emphasis omitted)).
Mr. Horn also seems to challenge the Court of Federal
Claims’ dismissal of his claims alleging constitutional vio-
lations of the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2 We see no error in
the court’s dismissal. For a party’s claim to come within
the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Federal
Claims, the party “must identify a . . . source of substantive
law that creates the right to money damages,” or in other
words, is “money-mandating.” Fisher v. United States,
402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). We
have repeatedly held that the constitutional claims as-
serted by Mr. Horn are not money-mandating. See Allen
v. United States, 546 F. App’x 949, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
(holding that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments are
not money-mandating and thus, do not provide jurisdiction
2 To the extent that Mr. Horn raises new issues in
his appeal briefs, we do not consider these arguments be-
cause they were not raised in his submissions to the Court
of Federal Claims. As a court of appellate review, we do
not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See
Hitsman v. United States, 825 F. App’x. 859, 861 (Fed. Cir.
2020) (“Ordinarily, we ‘do[ ] not give consideration to issues
not raised below.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Hormel
v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 556 (1941))).
Case: 24-1054 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 06/07/2024

-- 4 of 5 --

HORN v. US 5
under the Tucker Act); Drake v. United States, 792 F. App’x
916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Court of Federal Claims,
however, does not have jurisdiction to render judgment on
claims against the United States based on the Sixth
Amendment because it is not money mandating.”); Brown
v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Be-
cause monetary damages are not available for a Fourth
Amendment violation, the Court of Federal Claims does
not have jurisdiction over a such a violation.”).
We have considered Mr. Horn’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive.3 For the foregoing reasons,
we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
3 On May 9, 2024, Mr. Horn filed a petition for writ
of mandamus requesting that we order the Department of
Health and Human Services and the District of Columbia
Department of Motor Vehicles to remove the indefinite sus-
pension of his commercial driver’s license. We do not have
jurisdiction to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295; see also Perry
v. United States, 524 F. App’x. 680, 682 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“A
writ of mandamus is not a substitute for the regular appeal
process, . . . and cannot be used [] to rectify [a party’s] fail-
ure to file in the court that has jurisdiction over his
claim.”).
Case: 24-1054 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 06/07/2024

-- 5 of 5 --