Case: 23-1776 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 10/05/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CEDRIC GREENE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1776
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-01779-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.
______________________
Decided: October 5, 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 REYNA, HUGHES, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1776 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 10/05/2023
2 GREENE v. US
PER CURIAM.
Cedric Greene appeals a decision from the United
States Court of Federal Claims dismissing for lack of sub-
ject matter jurisdiction his claims to reinstate his social se-
curity benefits and for backpay. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Greene filed a complaint before the United States
Court of Federal Claims (“Court of Federal Claims”), alleg-
ing that his social security benefits were “stripped in an
unlawful fashion.” Appx2. 1 As relief, Mr. Greene re-
quested the reinstatement of his social security benefits
“plus back pay from the date that his benefits [were] dis-
continued in an unjust manner.” Appx3.
The government moved to dismiss Mr. Greene’s com-
plaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule
12(b)(1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims. Appx4.
In response, Mr. Greene argued that the Tucker Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), permits the Court of Federal Claims to
exercise jurisdiction over his social security benefits
claims. Appx7.
The Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s
motion, concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
over Mr. Greene’s claims and requested relief. Appx7–8.
Mr. Greene appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court reviews de novo a decision by the Court of
Federal Claims to dismiss a case for lack of subject matter
1 “Appx” refers to the appendix accompanying the
government’s responding brief.
Case: 23-1776 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 10/05/2023
GREENE v. US 3
jurisdiction. See Diversified Grp. Inc. v. United States, 841
F.3d 975, 980 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
DISCUSSION
We affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ determination
that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Greene’s
claim to reinstate his social security benefits and for back-
pay on the same.
A party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court of Fed-
eral Claims has the burden of establishing jurisdiction is
proper. See Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. United
States, 805 F.3d 1082, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Court of
Federal Claims’ jurisdiction is limited, largely established
by the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491. See United States v.
Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 397–99 (1976). The Tucker Act gives
the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over “any claim
against the United States founded either upon the Consti-
tution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an exec-
utive department, 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). But the Tucker Act itself does not create a
substantive cause of action, so a plaintiff must identify a
separate contract, regulation, statute, or Constitutional
provision, which, if violated, provides for a claim for money
damages against the United States. See Fisher v. United
States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see
also Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin.,
525 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Neither Mr. Greene’s complaint nor his informal brief
identifies any contract, regulation, statute, or Constitu-
tional provision outside the Tucker Act that conveys juris-
diction to the Court of Federal Claims. See Appellant
Informal Br. 1–3; Appx 1–3. Even construing Mr. Greene’s
complaint in the most favorable light, he solely challenges
a decision by the Social Security Administration relating to
his social security benefits. Appx1. But this court has held
Case: 23-1776 Document: 15 Page: 4 Filed: 10/05/2023
4 GREENE v. US
that the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction under the
Tucker Act does not extend to claims, like Mr. Greene’s, for
social security benefits. See, e.g., Marcus v. United States,
909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Mr. Greene has
therefore failed to carry his burden to establish that the
Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction over his social secu-
rity benefits claim is proper.
We note that there is a procedural process for challeng-
ing overpayments and underpayments of social security
benefits before the Social Security Administration. See 42
U.S.C. § 404 (outlining procedure). The Social Security Act
confers exclusive jurisdiction for review of the Social Secu-
rity Administration’s decisions, including those related to
overpayment and underpayment, to the district court in
the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g)–(h). Consequently, the record indicates that the
United States District Court for the Central District of Cal-
ifornia has exclusive jurisdiction over Mr. Greene’s chal-
lenge of the Social Security Administration’s decision. 2
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Greene has failed to
carry his burden of establishing that the Court of Federal
Claims had jurisdiction over his social security benefits
claim. The Court of Federal Claims thus properly con-
cluded that it had no jurisdiction over Mr. Greene’s claim.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of Mr.
Greene’s complaint.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
2 Mr. Greene stated that his residence is in Los An-
geles, California. Appx2.