Ravel Ferrera Parra v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RAVEL FERRERA PARRA,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1527
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-00428-AOB, Judge Armando O. Bonilla.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Ravel Ferrera Parra brought this suit at the United
States Court of Federal Claims asserting that the Social
Security Administration’s denial of benefits, withholding of
funds, and classifying him as a “security threat” amounted
to an illegal exaction and taking of his property without
just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint for
lack of jurisdiction. This appeal followed. The United
Case: 25-1527 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 05/19/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

PARRA v. US 2
States now moves to summarily affirm. Mr. Parra opposes
and requests various reliefs. ECF No. 11.
Summary disposition is appropriate here because there
is no “substantial question regarding the outcome” of the
appeal. Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). We have long recognized that
the Social Security Act’s comprehensive remedial scheme
for SSA benefits claims displaces the Court of Federal
Claims’s jurisdiction under the Tucker Act in a case like
this. See Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471
(Fed. Cir. 1990); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and (h) (routing actions
concerning the denial of social security benefits to district
court). To the extent Mr. Parra is arguing that the Court
of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to compel SSA action
wrongfully withheld, that argument is likewise meritless.
See generally Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367,
1374 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he Court of Federal Claims
lack[s] the general federal question jurisdiction of the dis-
trict courts, which would have allowed it to review the
agency’s actions and to grant relief pursuant to the Admin-
istrative Procedure Act[.]” (citations omitted)).
Accordingly,
Case: 25-1527 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 05/19/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

PARRA v. US 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The United States’s motion is granted. The judg-
ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims is sum-
marily affirmed.
(2) ECF No. 11 is denied.
(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
May 19, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1527 Document: 12 Page: 3 Filed: 05/19/2025

-- 3 of 3 --