Daryl Jerome Gordon v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DARYL JEROME GORDON,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1016
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-02035-KCD, Judge Kathryn C. Davis.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before TARANTO, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
The United States moves to summarily affirm the final
judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dis-
missing Daryl Jerome Gordon’s complaint. Mr. Gordon has
not responded. We grant the motion.
According to his complaint, Mr. Gordon was involved
in a dispute before the Dallas County District Court in
Case: 25-1016 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 02/27/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

GORDON v. US 2
which he was denied child custody and required to pay
child support. He then filed this case, seeking “a thorough
investigation into the child support orders and modifica-
tions thereof,” “[a]djustment of child support,” and
“[d]amages for emotional distress and financial loss,”1 ar-
guing that he received inadequate legal representation
during those proceedings and that disclosure and use of his
“VA disability income in the child support calculations con-
stitutes a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974.”2
The Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s
motion to dismiss Mr. Gordon’s complaint for want of sub-
ject matter jurisdiction. The court explained that it lacked
authority to review the state court custody proceedings
and, more generally, any claim against the Texas state
court and other state agencies since its jurisdiction under
the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, was limited to monetary
claims against the United States. The Court of Federal
Claims further explained that the Privacy Act’s exclusive
grant of jurisdiction to federal district courts3 precludes it
from exercising review under the Tucker Act.
Summary affirmance is appropriate here, because dis-
missal was “so clearly correct as a matter of law that no
substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal
exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). The trial court was clearly correct that it could
not entertain Mr. Gordon’s collateral attacks on the Texas
state court proceedings or claims against other Texas agen-
cies, because it only has jurisdiction over claims against the
United States. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S.
1 Appx16, ECF No. 6.
2 Appx15, ECF No. 6.
3 See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1) (providing jurisdiction in
the United States district courts).
Case: 25-1016 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 02/27/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

GORDON v. US 3
584, 588 (1941). Our cases have also uniformly concluded
that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over
Privacy Act claims. See Bias v. United States, 722 F. App’x
1009, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (collecting cases).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted. The judgment of the United
States Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
February 27, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1016 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 02/27/2025

-- 3 of 3 --