John Arthur Boultbee v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JOHN ARTHUR BOULTBEE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-2260
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-01884-EHM, Judge Edward H. Meyers.
______________________
Decided: April 10, 2025
______________________
J OHN A RTHUR BOULTBEE, Summerland, British Colum-
bia, Canada, pro se.
CHRISTOPHER B ERRIDGE , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM J AMES G RIMALDI,
P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY .
______________________
Case: 24-2260 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 04/10/2025

-- 1 of 7 --

BOULTBEE v. US 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, P ROST and HUGHES , Circuit
Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
John Arthur Boultbee appeals a decision of the United
States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismiss-
ing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
denying his request to transfer his case to district court.
Boultbee v. United States, No. 23-1884, 2024 WL 3220261
(Fed. Cl. June 27, 2024) (“Decision”). For the following rea-
sons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In July 2007, the District Court for the Northern Dis-
trict of Illinois held Mr. Boultbee jointly and severally lia-
ble for mail fraud with his co-defendants Conrad M. Black,
Peter Y. Atkinson, and Mark S. Kipnis. S.A. 29–30.1 In
2011, the district court resentenced Mr. Boultbee for his
mail fraud conviction. Decision, 2024 WL 3220261, at *1.
The district court sentenced him to time-served and or-
dered him to pay a $100 assessment, $500 in fines, $15,000
in restitution, and $28,566 in forfeiture. Decision,
2024 WL 3220261, at *1. Mr. Boultbee alleges he made the
payments in full. Id.
On December 23, 2020, President Donald J. Trump
granted Mr. Boultbee a full and unconditional pardon. Id.
at *2. As a result, on October 24, 2022, the government
notified the district court that Mr. Boultbee satisfied the
judgment, and the government released him from a judg-
ment lien recorded against him. Id. On November 29,
2022, the Department of Justice received a refund request
from Mr. Boultbee for his assessment, fine, restitution, and
forfeiture payments. Id. On July 14, 2023, he contacted
1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix in-
cluded with the government’s informal brief.
Case: 24-2260 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 04/10/2025

-- 2 of 7 --

BOULTBEE v. US 3
the Department of Justice for a status update but did not
receive a response. Id. Mr. Boultbee then filed a complaint
at the Claims Court seeking a refund of the payments to-
taling $44,166. Id. His complaint alleged that the govern-
ment wrongly withheld the payments after his presidential
pardon. Id.
The government moved to dismiss Mr. Boultbee’s com-
plaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at *1. The
Claims Court granted the government’s motion and con-
cluded that (1) the pardon power is not a basis for jurisdic-
tion in the Claims Court; (2) Mr. Boultbee failed to identify
a money-mandating Act of Congress that establishes juris-
diction over his claim; (3) Mr. Boultbee’s implied contract
argument is frivolous; and (4) Mr. Boultbee does not meet
the jurisdictional requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1495 for
unjust conviction. Id. at *3–*8. The Claims Court also de-
nied Mr. Boultbee’s request to transfer the case under
28 U.S.C. § 1631 to a district court. Id. at *8. The Claims
Court explained that Mr. Boultbee did not identify another
court that has jurisdiction and, even assuming the District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois would have juris-
diction, transfer is not in the interest of justice because the
district court no longer held the funds. Id. at *8–*9.
Mr. Boultbee timely appealed. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review the Claims Court’s decision dismissing the
case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Diaz v.
United States, 853 F.3d 1355, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Mr. Boultbee bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction
by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. We review the
Claims Court’s decision denying transfer of the case for
abuse of discretion. Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United
States, 521 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Case: 24-2260 Document: 29 Page: 3 Filed: 04/10/2025

-- 3 of 7 --

BOULTBEE v. US 4
On appeal, Mr. Boultbee raises two main arguments.
First, he argues that the Claims Court has jurisdiction over
his claim. Appellant’s Informal Br. 7. He asserts that he
made the payments pursuant to laws of Congress and he
had an implied contract with the government because the
government is required to refund money to which it is not
entitled. Id. at 7–13. Second, Mr. Boultbee argues that it
is in the interest of justice to transfer his case to the Dis-
trict Court for the Northern District of Illinois where he
made the payments because there is no evidence that the
money passed out of the district court. Id. at 14–17. He
asserts that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern
District of Illinois’s (“USAO-NDIL”) ledger does not indi-
cate where the payments went, and that his forfeiture pay-
ments did not go to his co-defendant. Id. We address each
argument in turn.
I
We first address Mr. Boultbee’s argument that the
Claims Court has jurisdiction over his case. We disagree.
Under the Tucker Act, certain actions for monetary relief
against the United States can be brought in the Claims
Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491. The Tucker Act grants the
Claims Court jurisdiction to decide “actions pursuant to
contracts with the United States, actions to recover illegal
exactions of money by the United States, and actions
brought pursuant to money-mandating statutes, regula-
tions, executive orders, or constitutional provisions.” Roth
v. United States, 378 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Here, Mr. Boultbee fails to establish a ground to invoke the
Claims Court’s limited jurisdiction.
Mr. Boultbee’s claim is for a refund of payments he
made as part of his criminal conviction sentence. His
claim, however, is not the type of claim that falls within the
Claims Court’s jurisdiction. First, his claim is not pursu-
ant to a contract with the government. Mr. Boultbee ap-
pears to argue that he had an implied contract with the
Case: 24-2260 Document: 29 Page: 4 Filed: 04/10/2025

-- 4 of 7 --

BOULTBEE v. US 5
government because the government is not entitled to his
payments, and his co-defendant, Mr. Atkinson, received a
refund after a circuit court partially reversed Mr. Atkin-
son’s charges. Appellant’s Informal Br. 9–13. Mr. Boultbee
asserts that he voluntarily made the payments because the
government could not enforce payment under Canadian
law where all his property resides. Id. at 13. Mr. Boult-
bee’s arguments fail. An implied contract “requires:
(1) mutuality of intent to contract; (2) consideration; and
(3) unambiguous offer and acceptance.” Fairholme Funds,
Inc. v. United States, 26 F.4th 1274, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
When the government is a party, an implied contract also
“requires that (4) the government representative whose
conduct is relied upon must have actual authority to bind
the government in contract.” Id. at 1294. Mr. Boultbee
does not establish the elements required for an implied
contract. That Mr. Boultbee’s co-defendant received a re-
fund due to a circuit court reversal does not create an im-
plied contract between Mr. Boultbee and the government.
Second, Mr. Boultbee’s payments are not an illegal ex-
action of money. “To invoke Tucker Act jurisdiction over
an illegal exaction claim, a claimant must demonstrate
that the statute or provision causing the exaction itself pro-
vides, either expressly or by ‘necessary implication,’ that
‘the remedy for its violation entails a return of money un-
lawfully exacted.’” Norman v. United States, 429 F.3d
1081, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Cyprus Amax Coal Co.
v. United States, 205 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The
Claims Court noted that Mr. Boultbee expressly dis-
claimed bringing an illegal exaction claim. Decision,
2024 WL 3220261, at *5.
Third, Mr. Boultbee does not identify any money-man-
dating statutes, regulations, executive orders, or constitu-
tional provisions that establish jurisdiction over his claim.
To the extent Mr. Boultbee relies on the pardon power, par-
dons cannot restore “property or interests vested in others
in consequence of the conviction and judgment.” Ill. C.R.
Case: 24-2260 Document: 29 Page: 5 Filed: 04/10/2025

-- 5 of 7 --

BOULTBEE v. US 6
Co. v. Bosworth, 133 U.S. 92, 103 (1890). Pardons also can-
not restore money transferred to the U.S. Treasury, “except
expressly authorized by act of Congress.” Knote v. United
States, 95 U.S. 149, 154 (1877). The Claims Court found
that Mr. Boultbee’s payments vested in third parties or the
U.S. Treasury. Even if the payments are not vested, the
money would be held by the district court and the Claims
Court does not have power to compel the district court to
refund the payments. Accordingly, the Claims Court cor-
rectly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider
Mr. Boultbee’s claim.
II
We also disagree with Mr. Boultbee’s argument that
the Claims Court erred in denying his request to transfer
the case. When the Claims Court “finds that there is a
want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest
of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such
court . . . in which the action or appeal could have been
brought at the time it was filed or noticed.”
28 U.S.C. § 1631. Here, the Claims Court had a sufficient
basis to conclude that it is not in the interest of justice to
transfer the case.
The Claims Court denied Mr. Boultbee’s transfer re-
quest because it found that his payments did not remain
with the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Decision, 2024 WL 3220261, at *9. In reaching its conclu-
sion, the Claims Court found that the USAO-NDIL ledger
indicated that Mr. Boultbee made his final payment on
June 29, 2009. Id.; see S.A. 32. The Claims Court noted
that the USAO-NDIL holds the payment for thirty days
and remits it to either the U.S. Treasury or a person to
whom restitution is owed. Decision, 2024 WL 3220261, at
*9. Further, the Claims Court found that the District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s 2011 final order
of forfeiture showed that after Mr. Boultbee satisfied his
forfeiture liability, the district court ordered release of
Case: 24-2260 Document: 29 Page: 6 Filed: 04/10/2025

-- 6 of 7 --

BOULTBEE v. US 7
funds to his co-defendant, Mr. Black, whose funds the dis-
trict court held to cover Mr. Boultbee’s forfeiture. Id.; see
S.A. 30. As a result, the Claims Court found that
Mr. Boultbee’s payments vested in third parties or the U.S.
Treasury before he received his pardon in 2020. Decision,
2024 WL 3220261, at *9. The Claims Court concluded that
transfer is not in the interest of justice because the North-
ern District of Illinois no longer held the funds. Id. The
Claims Court did not abuse its discretion by declining to
transfer Mr. Boultbee’s case.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Boultbee’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we affirm the Claims Court’s decision.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-2260 Document: 29 Page: 7 Filed: 04/10/2025

-- 7 of 7 --