Gregory A. Austin v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GREGORY A. AUSTIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1541
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-00808-ZNS, Judge Zachary N. Somers.
______________________
Decided: January 10, 2024
______________________
G REGORY A. A USTIN, Fresno, CA, pro se.
L IRIDONA SINANI, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, STEVEN J OHN G ILLINGHAM , P ATRICIA
M. MCCARTHY , L OREN MISHA P REHEIM .
______________________
Before L OURIE, BRYSON, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1541 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 01/10/2024

-- 1 of 4 --

AUSTIN v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Gregory Austin appeals the dismissal of his complaint
by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Because Mr. Austin’s claims were clearly out-
side the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, dismis-
sal was appropriate. We affirm.
This case relates to multiple California state court ac-
tions relating to the dissolution of Mr. Austin’s marriage
and the issuance of a domestic violence restraining order
against him. Between 2015 and 2022, Mr. Austin at-
tempted to challenge the restraining order, and its re-
newal, by filing a variety of suits in two of California’s
federal district courts. Both district courts ultimately dis-
missed his complaints for failure to state a claim or lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Austin then filed a similar
complaint in the Court of Federal Claims on July 22, 2022,
challenging the restraining order, attacking other actions
of the state and district courts, and identifying numerous
other general grievances. Upon finding that Mr. Austin’s
complaint failed to clearly articulate any possible basis for
its jurisdiction, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
We have jurisdiction over Mr. Austin’s appeal of the
Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(3). We review the dismissal de novo. See Fair-
holme Funds, Inc. v. United States, 26 F.4th 1274, 1284
(Fed. Cir. 2022).
The jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims is lim-
ited. See Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). As the plaintiff, it is Mr. Austin’s burden to
show that his claims are within the limited jurisdiction of
the Court of Federal Claims. See Brandt v. United States,
710 F3d. 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Mr. Austin failed to
meet this burden in the trial court and his arguments be-
fore us fare no better.
Case: 23-1541 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 01/10/2024

-- 2 of 4 --

AUSTIN v. US 3
Mr. Austin argues that the Court of Federal Claims
had jurisdiction pursuant to the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491. But that court’s Tucker Act jurisdiction only ex-
tends to claims for money damages against the United
States based on “a separate source of substantive law that
creates a right to money damages;” that is, what is often
referred to as a “money-mandating” source of law. Fisher
v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Mr.
Austin has not identified a non-frivolous basis for his con-
tention that he stated a claim against the United States
arising under a money-mandating provision. To the con-
trary, Mr. Austin’s purported claims against the United
States sound principally in tort, matters over which the
Court of Federal Claims plainly lacks jurisdiction. See 28
U.S.C. §1491(a) (establishing that Tucker Act jurisdiction
extends only to “cases not sounding in tort”); Brown, 105
F.3d at 623. He also tries to state claims of criminal mis-
conduct and various constitutional violations (e.g., under
the First, Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments) but
offers no persuasive reason to conclude that any of these
allegations implicate money-mandating sources of law. See
generally Allen v. United States, 88 F.4th 983, 986 (Fed.
Cir. 2023); LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028
(Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that Court of Federal Claims lacks
jurisdiction over constitutional claims based on amend-
ments that do not obligate federal government to pay
money).
Further, we agree with the Court of Federal Claims
that, in reality, the entirety of Mr. Austin’s complaint is a
challenge to the restraining order entered against him (and
renewed) by the San Francisco Superior Court. The Court
of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over claims
against state governments, state courts, or state or local
government employees or officials, or over any claims
founded on state law. 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
Case: 23-1541 Document: 28 Page: 3 Filed: 01/10/2024

-- 3 of 4 --

AUSTIN v. US 4
as beyond the jurisdiction of the court.”); Souders v. S.C.
Pub. Serv. Auth., 497 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nor
is the Court of Federal Claims authorized to review the dis-
missals of the two California federal district courts. See
Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(stating that Court of Federal Claims “does not have juris-
diction to review the decisions of district courts or the
clerks of district courts relating to proceedings before those
courts”). Moreover, to the extent Mr. Austin is bringing
claims against individuals, as opposed to the United States
itself, the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over
such claims as well. See Brown, 105 F.3d at 624.
Finally, Mr. Austin contends that the Supreme Court
of the United States has original jurisdiction over his case.
Even if this were the case – and it is not, as none of his
claims fall within the narrow categories of cases within the
Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, see U.S. Const. art.
III, § 2, cl. 2 (“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other
public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State
shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Ju-
risdiction.”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1251 – neither the Court
of Federal Claims nor the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is the Supreme Court. Mr. Austin did not file his
claims in the proper court.
Accordingly, we agree with the Court of Federal Claims
that it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Austin’s complaint. We
affirm the trial court’s dismissal.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 23-1541 Document: 28 Page: 4 Filed: 01/10/2024

-- 4 of 4 --