Case: 23-1613 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 08/11/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CEDRIC GREENE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1613
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-01754-TMD, Judge Thompson M. Dietz.
______________________
Decided: August 11, 2023
______________________
CEDRIC GREENE, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
KELLY GEDDES, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before LOURIE, PROST, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1613 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 08/11/2023
2 GREENE v. US
PER CURIAM.
Cedric Greene appeals from a decision of the United
States Court of Federal Claims (the “Claims Court”) dis-
missing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdic-
tion. See Greene v. United States, No. 22-1754, 2023 WL
2134358 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 21, 2023) (“Decision”). For the rea-
sons detailed below, we affirm the Claims Court’s decision.
BACKGROUND
In 2019, Greene, a California resident, received a letter
from the office of Senator Dianne Feinstein stating that her
office was assigned “to address [Greene’s] subsidy housing
concerns.” Greene v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 22-1754,
ECF No. 1 at 1 (“Complaint”). To assist Greene, the case-
worker assigned to his case contacted an unspecified gov-
ernment housing agency on his behalf. Id. According to
Greene, Senator Feinstein’s staff promised that they
“would do all they could to help him.” Id. However, after
contacting the housing agency, they allegedly failed to re-
spond to Greene’s numerous emails following up on the sta-
tus of his case. Id. Greene allegedly did not receive a
response from Senator Feinstein’s office until after he and
his spouse had been evicted from their residence. Id. at 1–
2.
Greene then filed suit in the Claims Court alleging that
the failure of Senator Feinstein’s staff to provide him with
the housing agency’s response prevented him from ade-
quately defending himself during his eviction proceedings.
Id. Greene further argued that, in failing to provide him
with the housing agency’s response, the caseworker com-
mitted “[g]ross [n]eglect in the most careless fashion.” Id.
at 3. Lastly, Greene argued that the government breached
a contract between it and himself when the Senator’s office
failed to provide Greene with a timely response. He sought
Case: 23-1613 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 08/11/2023
GREENE v. US 3
money damages as well as the reinstatement of his housing
subsidy benefits. Id.
The Claims Court first held that it did not have juris-
diction over a case where relief was being sought against a
defendant other than the United States. Decision at *2.
Therefore, it could not entertain Greene’s claims against
Senator Feinstein’s individual caseworker. Id. The court
then held that even if Greene had directed his claims at the
United States itself, rather than the individual case-
worker, his claims still fell outside the court’s jurisdiction
because his claims were categorized as tort claims. Id. at
*3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (stating that the Claims
Court’s jurisdiction is limited to “any claim against the
United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any
Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive depart-
ment, or upon any express or implied contract with the
United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in
cases not sounding in tort.” (emphasis added))). The court
went on to hold that it lacked jurisdiction over Greene’s
Due Process claims that a government actor prevented him
from adequately defending himself during his eviction pro-
ceedings because these claims could not mandate payment
of money by the government. Id.
Lastly, regarding Greene’s breach of contract claim, the
Claims Court found that Greene failed to sufficiently plead
the existence of a contract and instead made only thread-
bare conclusory statements that a contract existed, and
that the government breached that contract. Id. Because
Greene did not allege the elements of a contract, nor did he
allege that the caseworker had the authority to bind the
government in a contract, the court dismissed Greene’s
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. (citing
Perry v. United States, 149 Fed. Cl. 1, 12 (2020) (“A non-
frivolous allegation that a contract exists between a plain-
tiff and the United States is sufficient to invoke the subject
matter jurisdiction of the Claims Court, but dismissal may
be proper for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the claim
Case: 23-1613 Document: 15 Page: 4 Filed: 08/11/2023
4 GREENE v. US
is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”) (quoting Ibrahim v.
United States, 799 F. App’x 865, 867 (Fed. Cir. 2020))).
Greene then timely appealed the Claims Court’s decision
to this court.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Greene argues that he alleged “a contract
breach that could have invoked the [Claims Court’s] juris-
diction.” Appellant’s Informal Br. at 1. He adds that even
if his complaint contained jurisdictional defects, these
could have been cured by amendment. Id. at 1–2.
The government responds that the Claims Court fully
considered Greene’s breach of contract claim and correctly
held that Greene failed to sufficiently plead the existence
of a contract. Appellee’s Informal Br. at 4. Regarding the
possibility of amendment, the government points out that
Greene never moved to amend his complaint, and even if
he had moved to amend, it would have been futile due to
the lack of an express or implied contract. Id. at 5–6.
Because jurisdictional issues are questions of law, we
review them de novo. See Alder Terrace, Inc. v. United
States, 161 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citation omit-
ted). In doing so, we review any underlying findings of fact
for clear error. See Banks v. United States, 314 F.3d 1304,
1307–08 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). In addition,
where the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction is placed
into issue, the nonmoving party bears the burden of estab-
lishing jurisdiction. See Alder Terrace, 161 F.3d at 1377
(citation omitted).
Although pro se plaintiffs are given some latitude in
their pleadings and are not held to rigid standards or for-
malities imposed upon parties represented by counsel, Es-
telle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (citation omitted),
a pro se plaintiff must still “comply with the applicable
rules of procedural and substantive law.” Walsh v. United
States, 3 Cl. Ct. 539, 541 (1983) (citing Faretta v.
Case: 23-1613 Document: 15 Page: 5 Filed: 08/11/2023
GREENE v. US 5
California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 n.46 (1975)). Thus, the leni-
ency afforded to pro se litigants with respect to mere for-
malities does not relieve them of jurisdictional
requirements. See Kelley v. Sec’y, United States Dep’t of
Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
We agree with the government that the Claims Court
lacked jurisdiction to hear Greene’s case and properly dis-
missed his breach of contract claim. The requirements for
a valid contract with the United States are “mutual intent
to contract including an offer and acceptance, considera-
tion, and a [g]overnment representative who had actual au-
thority to bind the [g]overnment.” Silver State Land LLC
v. United States, 148 Fed. Cl. 217, 234 (2020) (quoting
Trauma Serv. Grp. v. United States, 104 F.3d 1321, 1326
(Fed. Cir. 1997)). Here, Greene made no direct mention of
a contract in his complaint and made only conclusory state-
ments that a contract existed in his pleadings. Further-
more, Greene did not allege that the caseworker assigned
to help him had the actual authority to enter a contract on
behalf of the government. Lastly, there could not have
been a contract because there was no consideration. We
therefore conclude that the Claims Court properly held
that Greene failed to plead the existence of a contract.
To the extent that Greene requested a remand of his
case so that he can amend his complaint, we reject such a
request. Greene never moved to amend his complaint be-
fore the Claims Court, and even if he had requested to
amend his complaint, such amendment would have been
futile due to the nature of Greene’s allegations. Greene
never claimed that there was an agreement with the case-
worker that would satisfy the elements of a contract. Thus,
an amendment would still not place Greene’s complaint
within the Claims Court’s jurisdiction.
Case: 23-1613 Document: 15 Page: 6 Filed: 08/11/2023
6 GREENE v. US
CONCLUSION
We have considered Greene’s remaining arguments,
but we find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the decision
of the Claims Court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.