David Hawthorne v. Secretary of the Army

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DAVID HAWTHORNE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1481
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama in No. 5:21-cv-01278-LCB,
Judge Liles C. Burke.
______________________
Decided: October 13, 2023
______________________
D AVID HAWTHORNE, Madison, AL, pro se.
STEPHANIE F LEMING, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
REGINALD T HOMAS BLADES , J R., BRIAN M. B OYNTON,
P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY .
______________________
Case: 23-1481 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 10/13/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

HAWTHORNE v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, STOLL and CUNNINGHAM ,
Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
David Hawthorne appeals a decision of the District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama dismissing his
case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Hawthorne was a civilian engineer for the Army at
Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama. S. Appx. 101.
In 2014, Mr. Hawthorne and the Army entered into a ne-
gotiated settlement agreement (NSA) related to a formal
Equal Employment Opportunity complaint he filed. Id.
Mr. Hawthorne has filed several other suits in the North-
ern District of Alabama relating to the NSA, all of which
have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
S. Appx. 102. In September 2021, Mr. Hawthorne filed the
current suit, seeking rescission of the NSA under various
statutes, including the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1346(a)(2). S. Appx. 709. The district court dismissed
Mr. Hawthorne’s complaint for lack of subject matter juris-
diction. S. Appx. 101–10. Specifically, the court held, inter
alia, it lacks jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act be-
cause Mr. Hawthorne’s claim is only for equitable relief. S.
Appx. 104–06. Mr. Hawthorne appeals. We have jurisdic-
tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2).
D ISCUSSION
Whether a district court has subject matter jurisdiction
over an action is a question of law that we review de novo.
De Archibold v. United States, 499 F.3d 1310, 1313 (Fed.
Cir. 2007). The district court has jurisdiction under the
Little Tucker Act only for claims for monetary relief “not
exceeding $10,000 in amount.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2); Doe
v. United States, 372 F.3d 1308, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2004). On
appeal, Mr. Hawthorne argues the district court has juris-
diction under the Little Tucker Act because he seeks zero
Case: 23-1481 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 10/13/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

HAWTHORNE v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 3
dollars, which is a monetary value less than $10,000.1 Ap-
pellant’s Opening Br. at 9; Appellant’s Informal Reply Br.
at 2. We do not agree.
Mr. Hawthorne did not request any monetary relief in
his complaint. S. Appx. 105–06. Even if it had been pled
in the complaint, a claim for zero dollars is not a request
for monetary relief. Instead, his claim is for rescission of
the NSA, which is a claim for equitable relief. S. Appx.
705–06. Because claims for only equitable relief are not
available under the Little Tucker Act, the district court cor-
rectly determined it does not have subject matter jurisdic-
tion. We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal for
lack of jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
1 Mr. Hawthorne for the first time in his Memoran-
dum in Lieu of Oral Argument appears to contest the dis-
trict court’s determination that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over Mr. Hawthorne’s claims under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1343; the Declaratory Judgment Act; and the Ad-
ministrative Procedure Act due to the preclusive effect un-
der res judicata. Appellant’s Memorandum at 2. This
argument is forfeited because it is untimely. See SEKRI,
Inc. v. United States, 34 F.4th 1063, 1071 n.9 (Fed. Cir.
2022) (finding an argument that was raised for the first
time at oral argument was forfeited).
Case: 23-1481 Document: 28 Page: 3 Filed: 10/13/2023

-- 3 of 3 --