Thomas D. Clark v. United States

NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition
is not citable as precedent. It is a public record.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
04-5077
THOMAS D. CLARK,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
___________________________
DECIDED: October 26, 2004
___________________________
Before CLEVENGER, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-Appellant, Thomas D. Clark (“Clark”), appeals from the decision of the
United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Clark v. United States, No. 03-2769C (Fed. Cl. Mar. 30, 2004). We
affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 1998 Clark filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.
§ 552 (2000) (“FOIA”), with the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) to obtain records
regarding “mind control.” (Def. App. at 8.) His FOIA request was delayed, which the
appellant alleges was due to the Central Intelligence Agency Information Act of 1984

-- 1 of 3 --

(“CIA Information Act”), codified at 50 U.S.C. § 431 (2000). Clark filed suit in the United
States Court of Federal Claims on December 1, 2003 claiming that this delay, along
with the CIA Information Act, the National Security Act, the Patriot Act, and various
government policies violated his and all United States citizens’ civil rights. He seeks
damages of one million dollars as well as an injunction ordering the United States to
cease the alleged unlawful activities.
The Court of Federal Claims identified five alleged causes of action within the
plaintiff’s complaint: FOIA, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, and the Uniform Commercial Code. The lower court dismissed each cause of
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
DISCUSSION
Clark’s FOIA claim fails for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Tucker Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1491 (2000), grants subject matter jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims.
This jurisdictional grant is limited to monetary claims based on contracts with the United
States and money-mandating constitutional provisions, statutes, regulations, or
executive orders. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 215-18 (1983). FOIA claims
are not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims because
FOIA does not mandate money damages. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) (2000). For this
reason, we affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of Clark’s FOIA claim. We also
affirm the dismissal of Clark’s § 1983 and Uniform Commercial Code claims under the
same reasoning.
04-5077 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Clark’s claims based upon the First and Fourth Amendments fail for lack of
standing. The Supreme Court has set forth a clear test for standing, which requires that
“the plaintiff must have suffered an ‘injury in fact’—an invasion of a legally protected
interest which is (a) concrete and particularized; and (b) ‘actual or imminent, not
“conjectural” or “hypothetical” . . . .’” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560
(1992) (citations and footnotes omitted). In his complaint, Clark alleges no facts
indicating that he personally suffered any sort of concrete injury other than a delayed
response to his FOIA filing. Clark’s First and Fourth Amendment claims are therefore
dismissed for lack of standing.1
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.
COSTS
No costs.
1 On appeal, Clark raises a number of arguments not presented before the
Court of Federal Claims. He now claims that the actions of the United States have
negatively impacted several businesses he runs by damaging his “business
environment” and “expectation of a free press and free market system.” (Appellant’s Br.
at 7-8.) We do not address these new allegations because they were not raised before
the Court of Federal Claims. In any event, such generalized allegations are not
sufficient to confer standing.
04-5077 3

-- 3 of 3 --