Case: 20-1078 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CHARLES E. UTLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2020-1078
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:19-cv-00796-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank
Horn.
______________________
Decided: July 8, 2020
______________________
CHARLES E. UTLEY, Greenbelt, MD, pro se.
JIMMY MCBIRNEY, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
JOSEPH H. HUNT, STEVEN JOHN GILLINGHAM, ROBERT
EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.
______________________
Case: 20-1078 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2020
2 UTLEY v. UNITED STATES
Before PROST, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and STOLL, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Charles Utley appeals from the final decision of the
United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his com-
plaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because we
agree that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to
hear his complaint, we affirm.
Mr. Utley is an Air Force veteran and a Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare enrollee. In April 2016,
medical professionals at the Washington, DC VA Medical
Center (VAMC) examined Mr. Utley for severe headaches.
The next month, the VAMC administered brain magnetic
resonance imaging to Mr. Utley that revealed a mass in his
brain. Mr. Utley alleges that the VAMC did not inform him
of the mass until September 2017. He had surgery to re-
move the mass in December 2017.
In May 2019, Mr. Utley filed a complaint in the Court
of Federal Claims alleging personal injury based on the
conduct of VAMC medical professionals. According to the
trial court, Mr. Utley’s complaint seeks compensation for
“mental, emotional, physical and economic stress” due to
the VAMC medical professionals’ alleged “‘[f]ailure to diag-
nose an unrelated disease,’ ‘[d]elayed diagnosis,’ ‘[m]edical
[m]alpractice [b]ased on [d]iagnostic [e]rrors,’ ‘[h]uman er-
ror,’ and ‘[m]isdiagnosis/[d]elayed [d]iagnoses.’” Utley
v. United States,
144 Fed. Cl. 573, 574 (2019) (brackets in
original).
The Government moved to dismiss Mr. Utley’s com-
plaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court of
Federal Claims granted the Government’s motion, holding
that because all of Mr. Utley’s stated allegations and
claims sound in tort, they must be dismissed for lack of sub-
ject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1491. Mr. Utley
Case: 20-1078 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 07/08/2020
UTLEY v. UNITED STATES 3
appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(3).
We review de novo the Court of Federal Claims’ dismis-
sal of a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Brown v. United States,
105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(citing Shearin v. United States,
992 F.2d 1195 (Fed. Cir.
1993)). Mr. Utley bears the burden of showing proper ju-
risdiction in the Court of Federal Claims by a preponder-
ance of the evidence. Taylor v. United States,
303 F.3d
1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Thomson v. Gaskill,
315 U.S. 442, 446 (1942)). Under the Tucker Act, the Court
of Federal Claims has limited jurisdiction to hear certain
claims against the Government. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
The Tucker Act expressly excludes tort claims against the
Government from the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction.
Id. (“The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have
jurisdiction to render judgment upon 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.”).
Mr. Utley has not identified any section of the Consti-
tution or any statute or regulation that would entitle him
to recover damages under the Tucker Act based on the facts
he alleges. On appeal, Mr. Utley agrees that his complaint
states claims for medical malpractice and negligence. Med-
ical malpractice and negligence are claims sounding in tort
over which the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction.
See id.; Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States,
521 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (collecting cases) (“A
claim for professional negligence is a tort claim.”). Because
the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to
hear such claims, it would seem that this case should have
been filed in district court, not the Court of Federal Claims.
Case: 20-1078 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 07/08/2020
4 UTLEY v. UNITED STATES
Mr. Utley also appears to argue that the trial court
erred in dismissing his complaint because he alleged facts
sufficient to support criminal charges against VAMC med-
ical professionals for falsifying medical records. But “the
role of the judiciary in . . . enforcing and policing the crim-
inal law is assigned to the courts of general jurisdiction and
not to” the Court of Federal Claims. Kania v. United
States,
227 Ct. Cl. 458, 465 (1981). Accordingly, to the ex-
tent Mr. Utley alleges injury due to criminal activity, the
Court of Federal Claims still lacks jurisdiction over his
claim.
We have considered Mr. Utley’s remaining arguments
and do not find them persuasive. For the above reasons,
we conclude the Court of Federal Claims did not err in dis-
missing Mr. Utley’s complaint for lack of subject-matter ju-
risdiction.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
