Gary Eugene Maddox, Ii v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GARY EUGENE MADDOX, II,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1257
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-00742-EDK, Judge Elaine Kaplan.
______________________
Decided: July 16, 2025
______________________
G ARY EUGENE M ADDOX , II, Providence, RI, pro se.
BRYAN MICHAEL BYRD, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
P ATRICIA M. MCC ARTHY , L OREN M ISHA P REHEIM , BRETT
SHUMATE.
______________________
Before L OURIE, D YK, and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.
Case: 25-1257 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 07/16/2025

-- 1 of 6 --

MADDOX v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Gary E. Maddox II appeals pro se a decision of the
United States Court of Federal Claims, dismissing his
amended complaint which sought relief for alleged mishan-
dling of documents by the Supreme Court’s clerk’s office in
connection with petitions for certiorari and rehearing. See
Maddox v. United States, No. 24-742, 2024 WL 4867143
(Fed. Cl. Nov. 22, 2024) (“Decision”). For the reasons dis-
cussed below, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Maddox filed a petition for writ of certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of a sum-
mary judgment decision against Mr. Maddox on claims
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Decision at *1;
S. App’x 18, 20.1 The Supreme Court denied the petition
for writ of certiorari, Maddox v. Maryland Parole Comm’n,
144 S. Ct. 824, 218 L.Ed.2d 32 (mem.) (2024), and
Mr. Maddox petitioned for rehearing. See Decision at *1.
After a back-and-forth with the clerk’s office—including
during which Mr. Maddox attempted to move to publish
new evidence and the office informed Mr. Maddox that his
rehearing filings did not comply with the court’s rules—the
petition for rehearing was docketed without the motion.
See Decision at *2; S. App’x 20–23. The Supreme Court
subsequently denied the rehearing petition. Maddox
v. Maryland Parole Comm’n, 144 S. Ct. 2576, 219 L.Ed.2d
1235 (mem.) (2024).
On July 10, 2024, Mr. Maddox filed an amended com-
plaint2 with the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that his
1 S. App’x refers to the Supplemental Appendix filed
with the government’s brief, ECF No. 11.
2 The operative complaint before the Court of Fed-
eral Claims is Mr. Maddox’s amended complaint. Decision
at *3; S. App’x 9, 14–24.
Case: 25-1257 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 07/16/2025

-- 2 of 6 --

MADDOX v. US 3
filing had been “drastically altered” because his motion and
a sworn declaration had been removed. S. App’x 23; see id.
at 14–24; see also Decision at *2–3. The amended com-
plaint requested relief under several theories for alleged
mishandling and altering of documents by the clerk’s office.
Mr. Maddox alleged violations of several criminal laws and
codes of conduct for judicial employees. Decision at *3;
S. App’x 18–19. He further alleged that the clerk’s office
breached a contract which was created between the office
and him upon his paying of the filing fee. Decision at *3;
S. App’x 19. Finally, he alleged that the clerk’s office vio-
lated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause because “the
document that was taken by the government was altered
and made for public use via S.C.O.T.U.S case No. 23-759
paid for by [him].” Decision at *3 (quoting S. App’x 17).
For these violations, Mr. Maddox sought reimbursement of
his $300 filing fee as well as $9,700 in punitive damages.
Decision at *3; S. App’x 24.
The Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state
a claim. Decision at *5. It also denied plaintiff’s motion for
a default judgment. Id.
Mr. Maddox appealed. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
II. D ISCUSSION
We review de novo a grant by the Court of Federal
Claims of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter ju-
risdiction. Taylor v. United States, 959 F.3d 1081, 1086
(Fed. Cir. 2020). We also review de novo the dismissal for
failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Id.
Here, “we accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as
true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of”
Mr. Maddox. Cotter Corp., N.S.L. v. United States,
127 F.4th 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2025). While pro se plain-
tiffs are “held to less stringent standards” on the pleadings,
Matthews v. United States, 750 F.3d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
Case: 25-1257 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 07/16/2025

-- 3 of 6 --

MADDOX v. US 4
2014) (citation and quotation marks omitted), they must
still meet the jurisdictional requirement. See Kelley
v. Sec’y, United States Dep’t of Lab., 812 F.2d 1378, 1380
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
A.
We first turn to the claims dismissed for lack of juris-
diction. The Court of Federal Claims did not err in dismiss-
ing these claims. See Decision at *4. Mr. Maddox sought
relief for alleged violations of criminal statutes and codes
of judicial conduct by the Supreme Court’s clerk’s office, all
of which are well established to be outside the jurisdiction
of the Court of Federal Claims. See Joshua v. United
States, 17 F.3d 378, 379–80 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming
Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal, holding that it “has no
jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims whatsoever under the
federal criminal code”). To the extent Mr. Maddox argues
jurisdiction was established under the Federal Tort Claims
Act for any purported torts resulting from the alleged mis-
handling of documents, see Appellant’s Br. 5, 7–8 and
S. App’x 72–74, the Court of Federal Claims also lacked ju-
risdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1);
Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d
1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Similarly, the court lacked ju-
risdiction to award punitive damages. See Garner v.
United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 941, 943 (1982).
On appeal, Mr. Maddox claims for the first time that
the clerk’s office also violated the First Amendment. Ap-
pellant’s Br. 4–5. Because Mr. Maddox did not argue any
First Amendment violation in his complaint before the
Court of Federal Claims, he has forfeited it on appeal. See
Allen v. United States, 88 F.4th 983, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2023)
(finding appellant forfeited claims of constitutional viola-
tion not asserted before the trial court).
Case: 25-1257 Document: 24 Page: 4 Filed: 07/16/2025

-- 4 of 6 --

MADDOX v. US 5
B.
The Court of Federal Claims also did not err in dismiss-
ing Mr. Maddox’s contract or Takings claims for failure to
state a claim.
With respect to the contract claim, Mr. Maddox argued
that he entered into a contract with the United States by
paying the filing fee for his petition. Appellant’s Br. 6, 13;
Decision at *4; S. App’x 19. However, payment of a filing
fee alone does not create a contract between the United
States and the plaintiff. See, e.g., Boyd v. United States,
134 F.4th 1348, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (explaining contracts
require, among other factors, mutuality of intent to con-
tract). The Court of Federal Claims thus properly deter-
mined that Mr. Maddox did not plausibly plead a claim for
breach of contract.
On the Takings claim, Mr. Maddox argues the clerk’s
office “took [p]ages containing a sworn declaration from
Maddox’s document [private property] then entered it on to
the supreme court docket for judicial and public use[.]” Ap-
pellant’s Br. 7 (second alteration in the original). The
Court of Federal Claims determined that Mr. Maddox did
not plausibly allege the documents were appropriated for
public use as contemplated by the Fifth Amendment with-
out just compensation but instead Mr. Maddox’s claim
sounded in tort. See Decision at *4. We agree with the
Court of Federal Claims. Moreover, “the Court of Federal
Claims does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of
district courts or the clerks of district courts relating to pro-
ceedings before those courts.” Joshua, 17 F.3d at 380. It
likewise lacks jurisdiction over the Supreme Court and its
clerk.
Although a document was publicly filed on a court
docket, it does not mean it was taken for public use within
the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, much less here
where Mr. Maddox voluntarily provided the filing to the
court. See, e.g., Norman v. United States, 429 F.3d 1081,
Case: 25-1257 Document: 24 Page: 5 Filed: 07/16/2025

-- 5 of 6 --

MADDOX v. US 6
1089 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (explaining voluntary transfer of
property is not a proper basis on which to premise a Tak-
ings claim). Mr. Maddox has also not explained what “pub-
lic use” results from the clerk’s office allegedly omitting
documents from the docket. Instead, he appears to be al-
leging a tort claim, over which the Court of Federal Claims
lacks jurisdiction as explained above.
III. CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Maddox’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive.3 For the above rea-
sons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
3 In a separate motion, Mr. Maddox repeats many of
the claims made in his opening brief, and he further asks
this court to vacate the Decision due to alleged fraud and
obstruction by the clerk’s office. See ECF No. 21 at 1–3.
Upon consideration, the motion is denied.
Case: 25-1257 Document: 24 Page: 6 Filed: 07/16/2025

-- 6 of 6 --