Stanley Baker v. United States

NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not
citable as precedent. It is a public record.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
05-5153
STANLEY BAKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
_______________________
DECIDED: February 8, 2006
_______________________
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, LOURIE and LINN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Stanley Baker appeals from the final decision of the United States Court of
Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Baker v.
United States, No. 05-577C (Ct. Cl. July 8, 2005) (“Decision”). We affirm.
According to the Claims Court, Mr. Baker’s complaint and amended complaint
contained, at most, four claims: (1) a claim of fraud against a number of private and
state defendants; (2) an Administrative Procedure Act claim against the U.S. Postal
Service and the Veterans Administration; (3) a motion for review of a federal district
court’s decision; and (4) a claim of prejudice raised against certain state court judges.
Decision, slip op. at 3. In dismissing the complaint, the court recognized that its subject
matter jurisdiction is statutorily limited to claims for money damages against the United

-- 1 of 2 --

States. Id. at 4 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)(2000)). Because none of the claims that
the court could discern from Mr. Baker’s complaint was for money damages against the
United States, it dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id.
On appeal, Mr. Baker does not dispute the Claims Court’s characterization of the
claims contained in his complaint, nor its grounds for dismissing those claims as beyond
that court’s statutorily-imposed subject matter jurisdiction. Instead, Mr. Baker appears
to assert new claims and additional facts on appeal, such as a claim for sexual
misconduct. We discern no error in the Claims Court’s decision to dismiss the case for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, it is well-settled that, as an appellate court,
we will not normally hear any issue that is raised for the first time on appeal. See, e.g.,
James v. FERC, 755 F.2d 154, 155-56 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, although we are
sympathetic to Mr. Baker’s status as a pro se appellant, we must affirm the Claims
Court’s decision.
05-5153 -2-

-- 2 of 2 --