Noble Christo El, Aka Christopher Nathan Jones v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
NOBLE CHRISTO EL, AKA CHRISTOPHER
NATHAN JONES,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1474
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-01993-TMD, Judge Thompson M. Dietz.
______________________
Decided: October 8, 2025
______________________
N OBLE CHRISTO EL , Mays Landing, NJ, pro se.
K YLE SHANE B ECKRICH , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
T ARA K. HOGAN, P ATRICIA M. M CCARTHY , Y AAKOV ROTH .
______________________
Before L OURIE, REYNA , and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Case: 25-1474 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 10/08/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

EL v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Noble Christo El (formerly Christopher Nathan Jones)
appeals a decision by the United States Court of Federal
Claims (“the Claims Court”) sua sponte dismissing El’s
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. S.A. 1–2
(“Decision”).1 For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
El filed a complaint in the Claims Court asserting,
against the United States, New Jersey, and employees of
both, (1) constitutional violations under the Fourth, Fifth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments,2 (2) breach of con-
tract, (3) fraud, and (4) failure to pay a debt. S.A. 18–36.
Most of El’s claims are based on his allegation that he is
the beneficiary of a trust that New Jersey failed to honor
and to which the United States is a guarantor. El also al-
leges that he was falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned, and
subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.
The Claims Court dismissed El’s complaint sua sponte
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, it de-
termined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over El’s
claims to the extent that his complaint alleged claims
against federal government officials in their individual ca-
pacities, claims against states, state and local govern-
ments, and state officials, and claims based in tort and
constitutional violations. Decision at 2. Moreover, the
Claims Court explained that it also lacked jurisdiction over
El’s claims alleged against the United States because El’s
1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed by
the government.
2 The supplemental appendix is missing a part of
page 12 of El’s complaint, which seems to set forth parts of
his constitutional claims. See S.A. 22. We are able to glean
El’s allegations from the parts of his complaint that we do
have.
Case: 25-1474 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 10/08/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

EL v. US 3
complaint failed to set forth a non-frivolous allegation of
breach of contract. Id.
El filed a timely appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review the Claims Court’s dismissal for lack of sub-
ject matter jurisdiction de novo. Abbas v. United States,
842 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Pro se complaints are
held to a less stringent standard compared with pleadings
drafted by counsel, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (per curiam), but pro se litigants still must meet ju-
risdictional requirements, Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of
Lab., 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The Tucker Act sets forth the jurisdiction for the
Claims Court, providing jurisdiction for “any claim against
the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or
any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive de-
partment, or upon any express or implied contract with the
United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in
cases not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). We
conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that
it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over El’s complaint.
First, the trial court properly dismissed El’s claims
against New Jersey and individual persons. The Claims
Court has jurisdiction over certain claims against the
United States, but not states, state actors, or individual
federal officials. See id. (providing the Claims Court with
jurisdiction over certain claims “against the United
States”); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (explaining that section 1491(a)(1) does not
grant the Claims Court jurisdiction over suits “against in-
dividual federal officials”).
Second, the trial court properly dismissed El’s fraud
claim because the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over tort
Case: 25-1474 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 10/08/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

EL v. US 4
claims against the United States, and fraud is a tort.
28 U.S.C § 1491(a)(1); see Brown, 105 F.3d at 623.
Third, the trial court properly dismissed El’s constitu-
tional claims. The Claims Court has no jurisdiction over
Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims. See
Brown, 105 F.3d at 623 (“Because monetary damages are
not available for a Fourth Amendment violation, the Court
of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over . . . such
a violation.”); Trafny v. United States, 503 F.3d 1339, 1340
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The Court of Federal Claims does not
have jurisdiction over claims arising under the Eighth
Amendment, as the Eighth Amendment ‘is not a money-
mandating provision.’” (citation omitted)); LeBlanc v.
United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (deter-
mining that Due Process and Equal Protection claims un-
der the Fourteenth Amendment provide no “sufficient basis
for jurisdiction because they do not mandate payment of
money by the government”). While it is true that claims
pursuant to the Fifth Amendment takings clause fall
within the Tucker Act’s grant of jurisdiction, see Dinh v.
United States, 145 F.4th 1316, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2025), El al-
leges that the state of New Jersey took his property, not
the federal government, S.A. 23. As noted above, the
Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over claims against states.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
Fourth, the trial court properly dismissed El’s breach
of contract claim and his failure to pay a debt claim, which
arises out of the breach of contract claim. See S.A. 34–36
(“[W]hat is clear here is the debt obligations of both the
United States and its incorporating State of New Jersey to
the infant Christopher Nathan Jones[, now Noble Christo
El]. This debt is evidenced by the resulting Trust . . . .”).
To establish subject matter jurisdiction for breach of con-
tract claims, a complainant is “required to set forth a non-
frivolous allegation of breach of a contract with the govern-
ment.” Columbus Reg’l Hosp. v. United States, 990
F.3d 1330, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2021). El’s allegation that the
Case: 25-1474 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 10/08/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

EL v. US 5
United States is “the downstream guarantor” of a contract
between himself and New Jersey, S.A. 18, fails to meet the
non-frivolous standard. El cites no authority for the prop-
osition that creation of a trust pursuant to state law ren-
ders the United States a guarantor, giving rise to Tucker
Act jurisdiction, and we are unaware of any such authority.
El’s assertion in his opening brief that being issued a birth
certificate and social security number constitutes a con-
tract between himself and the United States, Opening Br.
at 1, also fails to meet the non-frivolous standard. We are
similarly unaware of any authority standing for the propo-
sition that being issued a birth certificate or social security
number imposes contractual obligations on the United
States that give rise to Tucker Act jurisdiction. These al-
legations are “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Lewis
v. United States, 70 F.3d 597, 602 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting
Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682–63 (1946)). Since El set
forth no non-frivolous breach of contract claim, the Claims
Court properly dismissed the breach of contract and failure
to pay a debt claims.
CONCLUSION
We have considered El’s remaining arguments and find
them unpersuasive. For the above reasons, the Claims
Court did not err in dismissing El’s complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1474 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 10/08/2025

-- 5 of 5 --