Case: 23-1994 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 11/09/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CEDRIC GREENE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1994
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-01711-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.
______________________
Decided: November 9, 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 TARANTO, CLEVENGER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1994 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 11/09/2023
2 GREENE v. US
PER CURIAM.
Cedric Greene brought this action against the United
States in the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court), seek-
ing recovery for wrongs he alleged had been committed by
the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California. The Claims Court dismissed the action for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Greene v. United States,
No. 22-1711, 2023 WL 3454821 (Fed. Cl. May 15, 2023) (De-
cision). We affirm.
In his November 2022 complaint, Mr. Greene pre-
sented what he called claims of “negligence” by the district
court in the Northern District of California. SAppx. 4–6. 1
Mr. Greene based his claims on two factual allegations: (1)
that the district court signed him up for email notifications
related to his case in that court without his consent and (2)
that he never received “by mail” a report and recommenda-
tion issued by a magistrate judge in his case. SAppx. 4–5.
The Claims Court dismissed Mr. Greene’s case, con-
cluding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction for two
reasons. Decision, at *1–2. First, the Claims Court rea-
soned that it did “not have jurisdiction to review the deci-
sions of district courts,” noting that any review of the
challenged actions of the California district court must be
“in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cir-
cuit.” Id. at *1. Second, the Claims Court said that because
Mr. Greene characterized “the district court’s alleged mis-
conduct as ‘negligence,’” his claims sounded in tort, placing
them “outside [the Claims Court’s] jurisdiction.” Id. at *2
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (granting the Claims Court
jurisdiction “in cases not sounding in tort” (emphasis
added))).
1 “SAppx.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed
by the United States in this court with its brief as appellee.
Case: 23-1994 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 11/09/2023
GREENE v. US 3
Mr. Greene timely appealed the dismissal of his case.
We have jurisdiction to hear the appeal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(3).
We affirm the Claims Court’s dismissal. On appeal,
Mr. Greene expressly states that he does not challenge the
Claims Court’s dispositive holding that it lacked subject-
matter jurisdiction because his claims depend on review of
a district court’s actions. See Appellant Informal Br. at 1
(“The [Claims Court] found that the claims were beyond
the scope of [its] authority. We won’t dispute the [Claims]
Court’s power in terms of its authority.”); Appellant Infor-
mal Reply Br. at 1 (“As the Appellee[] stated in [its] brief,
the [Claims Court] doesn’t have jurisdiction to review ac-
tions of a District Court.”). And Mr. Greene does not chal-
lenge the Claims Court’s determination that his complaint
sounds in tort. See id. (stating that the district court’s con-
duct “rose to the level of a tort”); id. at 2 (stating that the
district court “committ[ed] tort acts”).
Moreover, we see no error in the Claims Court’s dismis-
sal of Mr. Greene’s complaint. We review jurisdictional is-
sues without deference, and the burden of establishing
jurisdiction at the Claims Court rested with Mr. Greene.
See Alder Terrace, Inc. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1372,
1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The Claims Court correctly held that
it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr.
Greene’s claims because it does not have the authority to
review the district court conduct that Mr. Greene chal-
lenges. See, e.g., Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380
(Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[T]he Court of Federal Claims does not
have jurisdiction to review the decisions of district courts
or the clerks of district courts relating to proceedings before
those courts.”). And the Claims Court also correctly held
that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr.
Greene’s claims because it does not have the statutory au-
thority to adjudicate tort claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)
(quoted above); Shearin v. United States, 992 F.2d 1195,
1197 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“It is well settled that the United
Case: 23-1994 Document: 15 Page: 4 Filed: 11/09/2023
4 GREENE v. US
States Court of Federal Claims lacks . . . jurisdiction to en-
tertain tort claims.”).
For those reasons, we affirm the Claims Court’s judg-
ment dismissing Mr. Greene’s complaint.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
AFFIRMED