Case: 22-2138 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 05/17/2023
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MATTIE T. LOMAX
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-2138
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-00770-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Mattie T. Lomax appeals from the judgment of the
United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing her com-
plaint for lack of jurisdiction. Before the court are Ms. Lo-
max’s opposed motion for entry of default judgment and the
government’s opposed motion for summary affirmance. We
grant the government’s motion and affirm.
Case: 22-2138 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 05/17/2023
2 LOMAX v. US
Ms. Lomax filed the underlying complaint at the Court
of Federal Claims naming the State of Florida as the de-
fendant. Her complaint sought a declaration that certain
documents relating to her criminal record in Florida were
invalid; an injunction against the state of Florida and its
officers and agents; and $20,000,000 in damages plus liti-
gation costs. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction and certified under
28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be in good faith.
Summary affirmance is appropriate here because the
merits of the parties’ positions are so clear “that no sub-
stantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal ex-
ists,” Joshua v. United States,
17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir.
1994). The Court of Federal Claims is a federal court of
limited jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1491. Relevant here, it
may only review monetary claims against the United
States. United States v. Sherwood,
312 U.S. 584, 588
(1941) (holding that the Court of Federal Claims’ “jurisdic-
tion is confined to the rendition of money judgments in
suits brought for that relief against the United States”).
Thus, the Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct in
holding that it lacked jurisdiction over this case.
We have considered Ms. Lomax’s arguments in her in-
formal opening brief and her response to the motion for
summary affirmance and do not find them persuasive. The
Court of Federal Claims clearly lacks jurisdiction over
claims for damages under § 1983. Shelden v. United
States,
742 F. App’x 496, 501–02 (Fed. Cir. 2018); cf. Can-
non v. Univ. of Chi.,
441 U.S. 677, 701 n.27 (1979) (“[Sec-
tion] 1983 is assuredly not available for suits against the
United States[.]”). The Court of Federal Claims was clearly
correct that it lacked jurisdiction over Ms. Lomax’s collat-
eral attacks on decisions of state and federal courts with
respect to criminal matters, Jones v. United States,
440 F.
App’x 916, 918 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (collecting cases), or to re-
view decisions by district courts or courts of appeals gener-
ally, see Boise Cascade Corp. v. United States, 296 F.3d
Case: 22-2138 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 05/17/2023
LOMAX v. US 3
1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court was likewise clearly
correct that it lacked jurisdiction over claims concerning
defamation, discrimination, and infliction of emotional
stress that sound in tort. See Jentoft v. United States,
450
F.3d 1342, 1349–50 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Finally, neither the
Eleventh Amendment nor
18 U.S.C. § 242, cited in Ms. Lo-
max’s papers, is a source of law that can be fairly inter-
preted as creating a right to money damages against the
United States that would give the court jurisdiction under
the Tucker Act,
28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted.
The Court of Federal Claims’ judgment is summarily af-
firmed.
(2) The motion for default judgment is denied.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
May 17, 2023 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
