Danny Joe Hirschfield, I v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DANNY JOE HIRSCHFIELD, I,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1338
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-02058-CNL, Judge Carolyn N. Lerner.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
The United States moves to summarily affirm the judg-
ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismiss-
ing Danny Joe Hirschfield, I’s complaint. Mr. Hirschfield
has not responded to the motion.
Mr. Hirschfield’s sprawling complaint asserts claims
against several states, government agencies and officials,
and “[f]ederal, state, local, county and corporate entities,”
Case: 24-1338 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 05/03/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

HIRSCHFIELD v. US 2
alleging violation of the Freedom of Information Act, 42
U.S.C. § 1983, “the Americans with Disability Act of 1998,”
“Title 22 U.S. Code § 2304,” Complaint at 1–2, and “negli-
gence” during a “previous civil case filed in the United
States Courts District of Columbia,” which “was dis-
missed.” Id. at 2. The Court of Federal Claims sua sponte
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. This appeal followed.
The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, grants the Court of
Federal Claims jurisdiction only over claims for money
damages “not sounding in tort” against the United States
based on sources of substantive law that “can fairly be in-
terpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Gov-
ernment.” United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287,
290 (2009) (citation omitted). Thus, the Court of Federal
Claims clearly was correct that it lacks jurisdiction over
tort claims or claims against states and entities other than
the United States.
The Court of Federal Claims was also clearly correct
that it lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Hirschfield’s claims for
damages under § 1983, Shelden v. United States, 742 F.
App’x 496, 501–02 (Fed. Cir. 2018); the Americans with
Disabilities Act”, Allen v. United States, 546 F. App’x 949,
951 (Fed. Cir. 2013); the Freedom of Information Act, see 5
U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); and section 2304, which is clearly not
money mandating. Lastly, the Court of Federal Claims
clearly lacks jurisdiction to review decisions of federal dis-
trict courts. Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States, 862 F.3d
1370, 1384–85 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Shinnecock Indian Nation
v. United States, 782 F.3d 1345, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed.
Cir. 2001); Allustiarte v. United States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1352
(Fed. Cir. 2001).
We thus agree that 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).
Case: 24-1338 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 05/03/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

HIRSCHFIELD v. US 3
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The United States’s motion for summary affir-
mance is granted, and the judgment of the United States
Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
May 3, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-1338 Document: 6 Page: 3 Filed: 05/03/2024

-- 3 of 3 --