Steven Johnson v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
STEVEN JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1716
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-01741-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank
Horn.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Steven Johnson appeals from the judgment of the
United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his com-
plaint for lack of jurisdiction and moves for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. We summarily affirm.
Mr. Johnson sued the United States in the Court of
Federal Claims seeking five million dollars for medical
Case: 23-1716 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 07/13/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

JOHNSON v. US 2
malpractice, cyberbullying, “injustice,” and violations of his
civil rights, including false imprisonment, and violations of
the Privacy Act. The United States moved to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the Court of Federal
Claims granted the motion.
The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, limits the jurisdic-
tion of the Court of Federal Claims to monetary claims not
sounding in tort against the United States based on a
source of substantive law that “can fairly be interpreted as
mandating compensation by the Federal Government.”
United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Here,
the Court of Federal Claims properly determined that it
lacked jurisdiction to hear Mr. Johnson’s claims.
The false imprisonment, malpractice, and cyberbully-
ing claims, the Court of Federal Claims properly held,
sound in tort, and are thus outside the Tucker Act grant of
jurisdiction. The Court of Federal Claims was likewise cor-
rect that Mr. Johnson cannot sue in that court for viola-
tions of the civil rights statutes that Mr. Johnson identified
or the Privacy Act. See Shelden v. United States, 742 F.
App’x 496, 501–02 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (noting claims for viola-
tions of the Civil Rights Act vest exclusively in the federal
district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4)); see also 5
U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1) (granting federal district courts juris-
diction in matters under the Privacy Act); Conner v. United
States, 641 F. App’x 972, 975 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding
that there is no Tucker Act jurisdiction over Privacy Act
claims). Finally, Mr. Johnson’s vague claim of “injustice”
was not premised on any specific source of substantive law
that imposed a money-mandating obligation on the United
States.
Because Mr. Johnson’s brief does not identify any legal
error in the dismissal order and because the merits of the
parties’ positions are so clear “that no substantial question
regarding the outcome of the appeal exists,” we summarily
Case: 23-1716 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 07/13/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

JOHNSON v. US 3
affirm the trial court’s judgment on appeal. Joshua v.
United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The judgment of the United States Court of Federal
Claims is summarily affirmed.
(2) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
is denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
July 13, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
Jarrett B. Perlow
Clerk of Court
Case: 23-1716 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 07/13/2023

-- 3 of 3 --