Christopher Scott Barksdale v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CHRISTOPHER SCOTT BARKSDALE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1386
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-01102-EMR, Judge Eleni M. Roumel.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Christopher Scott Barksdale appeals from the judg-
ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismiss-
ing his case for lack of jurisdiction. In response to this
court’s show cause order, the United States urges the court
to summarily affirm the decision or dismiss the appeal as
frivolous. Mr. Barksdale responds to the order and moves
to strike the United States’s response to the show cause or-
der.
Case: 25-1386 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

BARKSDALE v. US 2
Mr. Barksdale filed a complaint at the Court of Federal
Claims, in which, inter alia, he sought damages for harm
assertedly caused by decisions of two federal district judges
handling his prior lawsuits in district court and requested
that the court amend or repeal the federal in forma pau-
peris statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915. He also alleged that the
district judges in the prior cases violated the oath of office
set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 453. The Complaint further in-
voked civil rights provisions (namely, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,
1985, and 1988), the Federal Torts Claims Act, and several
provisions of the U.S. Constitution—the First Amendment,
the Ninth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and
the Due Process Clause (and equal protection component
thereof) of the Fifth Amendment. The Court of Federal
Claims dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction under the
Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), and certified under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be in good
faith. Mr. Barksdale nevertheless appealed.
Summary affirmance is appropriate here because “no
substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal
exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). The Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct
that it is not authorized to review Mr. Barksdale’s chal-
lenges to the rulings of the district courts in his prior cases,
see Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United States, 782 F.3d
1345, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Binding precedent establishes
that the Court of Federal Claims has no jurisdiction to re-
view the merits of a decision rendered by a federal district
court”), and that the assertion that the district judges in
those cases breached their oath of office was not a breach-
of-contract claim cognizable under the Tucker Act, Hercu-
les Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417, 423 (1996) (noting
that the Court of Federal Claims’s jurisdiction does not ex-
tend to “contracts implied in law”). Nor can the Court of
Federal Claims amend or repeal the in forma pauperis stat-
ute, which was enacted and can be amended or repealed
only by Congress.
Case: 25-1386 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

BARKSDALE v. US 3
It is also clear that the remaining claims are all outside
the Tucker Act. Some are barred because exclusive federal
court original jurisdiction over them lies in district court.1
The others—his constitutional allegations—fail because,
for each, the constitutional provision invoked is not a
source of substantive law that “can fairly be interpreted as
mandating compensation by the Federal Government,” a
requirement for Tucker Act jurisdiction here. United
States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) (citation
omitted).2
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (providing exclusive orig-
inal jurisdiction over Federal Tort Claims Act claims in fed-
eral district court); 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4) (providing for
federal court original jurisdiction over Civil Rights Act
cases exclusively in district court); see also Canuto v.
United States, 673 F. App’x 982, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Con-
gress has conferred to the district courts exclusive jurisdic-
tion over claims brought pursuant to the Federal Tort
Claims Act . . . and the Civil Rights Act”).
2 See United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 887
(Fed. Cir. 1983) (First Amendment not money-mandating);
Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir.
2013) (no jurisdiction over claims based on the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment); Patterson v. United
States, 218 F. App’x 987, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Ninth
Amendment); LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028
(Fed. Cir. 1995) (Fourteenth Amendment). While the Com-
plainant alleged that “the Defendant has taken plaintiff[’s]
Fifth amendment rights,” the trial court was clearly correct
that this refers to the Due Process Clause, not the Takings
Clause.
Case: 25-1386 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

BARKSDALE v. US 4
(1) The judgment of the United States Court of Federal
Claims is summarily affirmed.
(2) All pending motions are denied.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
April 28, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-1386 Document: 13 Page: 4 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 4 of 4 --