Michael Gorrio v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MICHAEL GORRIO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________
2024-1832
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-00354-MHS, Chief Judge Matthew H. Sol-
omson.
______________________
Decided: June 9, 2025
______________________
MICHAEL G ORRIO, Indiana, PA, pro se.
STEPHEN J. SMITH , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. B OYNTON, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY , CORINNE
N IOSI.
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 24-1832 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

G ORRIO v. UNITED S TATES 2
Michael Gorrio, appearing pro se, appeals from the
United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) de-
cision to dismiss his complaint sua sponte for lack of sub-
ject matter jurisdiction. See Gorrio v. United States, No.
24-354C (Fed. Cl. Apr. 11, 2024). S. App’x 1–5.1 For the
following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Gorrio filed a complaint against the United States
in the Claims Court seeking, among other forms of relief,
two billion dollars in damages. The complaint appears to
allege that the United States government unlawfully cre-
ated multiple Social Security accounts in his name, and
that such actions led to fraud, breach of contract, and false
imprisonment. The complaint also alleged violations of the
Pennsylvania Tort Claims Act and the Eighth Amendment
of the United States Constitution.
In his complaint, Mr. Gorrio named a broad array of
defendants in addition to the United States and certain
federal agencies, including the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania, other state entities, a hospital, a doctor, two judges,
and two district attorneys.
The Claims Court sua sponte dismissed Mr. Gorrio’s
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. S. App’x
3. As an initial matter, the Claims Court held that because
the Tucker Act limited the court’s jurisdiction to claims
against the United States, the court lacked jurisdiction to
hear claims against state or county entities and other
named individuals. Id. at 3–4.
Next, the Claims Court determined that it lacked juris-
diction to hear Mr. Gorrio’s breach of contract claim
1 “S. App’x” refers to the supplemental appendix
filed with the government’s informal response brief. We
employ the pagination used in the decision at S. App’x 1–5.
Case: 24-1832 Document: 54 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

G ORRIO v. UNITED S TATES 3
because his complaint “contain[ed] no non-frivolous, non-
conclusory allegations of fact even remotely suggesting
that he had a contract with the United States.” Id. at 4.
The court explained that Mr. Gorrio did not allege that an-
yone with actual authority to bind the United States en-
tered into a contract with him. Id. Although Mr. Gorrio
alleged that a Social Security officer breached an implied
contract by allegedly registering him for multiple Social Se-
curity numbers, he did “not explain the nature of the puta-
tive contract, how it was formed, or how it was breached.”
Id. Thus, the Claims Court held that it lacked jurisdiction
to hear Mr. Gorrio’s “breach of contract” claim. Id.
Finally, the Claims Court held that it did not have ju-
risdiction to hear Mr. Gorrio’s remaining Eighth Amend-
ment or tort claims. Id. at 4–5.
The Claims Court therefore dismissed the complaint
for lack of subject jurisdiction. Mr. Gorrio timely appealed,
and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
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.
2016). The Tucker Act gives the Claims Court jurisdiction
to render judgment on express or implied contract claims
against the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Alt-
hough pro se filings are held to “less stringent standards,”
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam), a
pro se litigant still bears the burden of proving that the
court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the com-
plaint. Sanders v. United States, 252 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed.
Cir. 2001).
We see no error in the Claims Court’s dismissal of the
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The
Claims Court properly dismissed claims against
Case: 24-1832 Document: 54 Page: 3 Filed: 06/09/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

G ORRIO v. UNITED S TATES 4
defendants other than the United States. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588
(1941) (“[I]f the relief sought is against others than the
United States the suit as to them must be ignored as be-
yond the jurisdiction of the [Claims Court].”) Nor does the
Claims Court have jurisdiction over Eighth Amendment or
tort claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (expressly excluding
claims “sounding in tort.”); Trafny v. United States, 503
F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (“The [Claims
Court] does not have jurisdiction over claims arising under
the Eighth Amendment . . . .”).
Finally, the Claims Court properly dismissed Mr. Gor-
rio’s breach of contract claims. To state such a claim
against the United States, a plaintiff must allege (and ul-
timately prove) four elements: “(1) mutuality of intent to
contract; (2) offer and acceptance; (3) consideration; and
(4) a government representative having actual authority to
bind the United States.” Hometown Fin., Inc. v. United
States, 409 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005). On appeal,
Mr. Gorrio argues that he entered into a contract with the
federal government through the Social Security registra-
tion process and reiterates the factual allegations in his
complaint. Pet’r’s Informal Br. 18–19. Specifically, he
claims that he was improperly issued two Social Security
numbers at birth, which resulted in fraud and his improper
conviction. Id. at 16.
Even assuming these allegations are true, they do not
plausibly allege any of the required elements of a contract
with the United States. Apart from conclusory allegations,
Mr. Gorrio fails to identify any government official with ac-
tual authority to bind the United States, nor does he plau-
sibly allege a mutual intent to contract or an offer made by
the government. To the extent that Mr. Gorrio suggests
that the issuance of a Social Security number itself evi-
dences a contractual relationship, the Supreme Court has
stated that Social Security benefits are “noncontractual.”
Case: 24-1832 Document: 54 Page: 4 Filed: 06/09/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

G ORRIO v. UNITED S TATES 5
Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 610 (1960). Moreover,
Mr. Gorrio fails to explain how the alleged improper as-
signment of two Social Security numbers resulted in spe-
cific monetary harm. Accordingly, dismissal of Mr. Gorrio’s
contractual claims was proper.
Mr. Gorrio also cites Native American trust law and
appears to argue that the United States government owes
him similar fiduciary duties. Pet’r’s Informal Br. 3 (citing
Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286 (1942)).
However, as Mr. Gorrio appears to acknowledge, the fidu-
ciary duties in Seminole Nation and similar cases arose
from specific statutes and regulations. See id. at 1–2; Sem-
inole Nation, 316 U.S. at 288 (noting that the Seminole Na-
tion’s claims arose out of “treaties, agreements, and acts of
Congress”); United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 222
(1983) (holding that federal statutes imposed fiduciary du-
ties on the United States). By contrast, the issuance of So-
cial Security numbers does not establish a fiduciary
relationship. See Flemming, 363 U.S. at 610. Additionally,
we have made clear “that the Claims Court has no jurisdic-
tion under the Tucker Act over claims to social security
benefits.” Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (citation omitted); see also 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) (directing that claims relating to Social Security
benefits “shall be brought in [an appropriate federal] dis-
trict court”).
We have considered Mr. Gorrio’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm the decision of the Claims Court.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1832 Document: 54 Page: 5 Filed: 06/09/2025

-- 5 of 5 --