Peter Joseph Polinski v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PETER JOSEPH POLINSKI,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1561
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-02124-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink.
______________________
Decided: September 4, 2025
______________________
P ETER J OSEPH P OLINSKI, Marcy, NY, pro se.
T ARA K. HOGAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY , BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
Before T ARANTO, CHEN, and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 25-1561 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 09/04/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

POLINSKI v. US 2
Peter Joseph Polinski appeals from the decision of the
United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) dis-
missing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. SAppx1 1–3.
For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In December 2024, Mr. Polinski filed a complaint in the
Claims Court, broadly alleging that the Schuyler Town
Court, which is a New York state court, and the New York
State Treasurer unlawfully seized certain of his assets.
SAppx 11–19. The complaint asserted several counts
against these New York defendants, including multiple
tort claims and alleged violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and
Thirteenth Amendments. Id. Mr. Polinski also listed the
United States as a defendant, alleging liability “through its
failure to ensure the proper discharge of obligations by the
New York State Treasurer.” Id. at 16. He sought
$468,000,000 in damages. Id. at 19.
The Claims Court sua sponte dismissed Mr. Polinski’s
complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. SAppx 1–
3. The Claims Court explained that it lacked jurisdiction
over the New York defendants because it may adjudicate
claims only against the United States. Id. at 3. The Claims
Court further found that the complaint failed to identify
any money-mandating source of law and concluded that it
lacked jurisdiction over tort claims or claims based upon
the Fourth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment, or the Thirteenth Amendment. Id.
D ISCUSSION
We review the Claims Court’s dismissal of a complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Diversified
Grp. Inc. v. United States, 841 F.3d 975, 980 (Fed. Cir.
1 “SAppx” refers to the supplemental appendix filed
by the government.
Case: 25-1561 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 09/04/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

POLINSKI v. US 3
2016). The Claims Court’s jurisdiction is generally limited
to a monetary claim against the United States based on a
contract, the Constitution, or other money mandating
source of federal law not sounding in tort. 28 U.S.C. § 1491;
see Boeing Co. v. United States, 119 F.4th 17, 21 (Fed. Cir.
2024). The Claims Court was correct that Mr. Polinski’s
complaint failed to assert such a claim.
The complaint primarily challenged actions taken by
New York state and local officials and entities.
SAppx 12–16. However, the Claims Court lacks jurisdic-
tion over claims against anyone other than the United
States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); United States v. Sher-
wood, 312 U.S. 584, 587–88 (1941). Additionally, the
Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over tort claims, see 28
U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), and over claims founded upon non-
money-mandating sources of law such as those based on
the Fourth Amendment, see Brown v. United States, 105
F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth Amendment, LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d
1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995), or the Thirteenth Amendment,
Brashear v. United States, 776 F. App’x 679, 682 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (per curiam).
On appeal, Mr. Polinski argues that the Claims Court
adopted an “overly restrictive interpretation of its jurisdic-
tion,” asserting that various alleged actions and failures by
the United States—including “the failure to redeem a fed-
eral obligation” and “systemic corruption”—amount to a
taking under the Fifth Amendment. Appellant’s Informal
Br. 6. These sweeping assertions are insufficient to demon-
strate that his complaint asserts a takings claim against
the United States. See Boeing Co. v. United States, 968
F.3d 1371, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explaining that “essen-
tially fictitious” and “obviously frivolous” claims are beyond
the Claims Court’s jurisdiction (citation omitted)). Mr. Po-
linski also raises various allegations of criminal conduct,
see Appellant’s Informal Br. 6–9, but the Claims Court
Case: 25-1561 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 09/04/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

POLINSKI v. US 4
lacks jurisdiction over criminal matters. See Joshua v.
United States, 17 F.3d 378, 379–80 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Polinski’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we af-
firm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1561 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 09/04/2025

-- 4 of 4 --