Case: 23-1797 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 12/14/2023
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LOUIS A. BANKS, Individually and on behalf of
D.B., a minor,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1797
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-01334-ZNS, Judge Zachary N. Somers.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Louis A. Banks submits a motion to “hear case before
the same merits panel of judges as prior related case,” and
submits his informal brief, ECF No. 11-2. Having consid-
ered Mr. Banks’ submissions, the court summarily affirms.
Mr. Banks brought this suit in the United States Court
of Federal Claims. Stemming from an incident between a
Case: 23-1797 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 12/14/2023
2 BANKS v. US
police officer and Mr. Banks and his son that occurred in
the D.C. Public Schools, Mr. Banks’ complaint appears to
allege a conspiracy involving the United States that vio-
lated his civil rights and rights under the First, Fourth,
Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Dkt. No. 6 at 2. On
March 28, 2023, the United States Court of Federal Claims
granted the United States’ motion to dismiss for lack of ju-
risdiction. This appeal followed.
Summary disposition is appropriate here because there
is no “substantial question regarding the outcome” of the
appeal. Joshua v. United States,
17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). The Tucker Act,
28 U.S.C.
§ 1491, limits the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal
Claims to claims for money damages against the United
States based on sources of substantive law that “can fairly
be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal
Government.” United States v. Navajo Nation,
556 U.S.
287, 290 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here,
Mr. Banks clearly failed to assert such a claim.
The court was clearly correct that Mr. Banks could not
sue in that court based on alleged violations of the First
Amendment, United States v. Connolly,
716 F.2d 882, 887
(Fed. Cir. 1983), the Fourth Amendment, Brown v. United
States,
105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Smith v. United States,
709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013), or the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution, LeBlanc v. United States,
50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Nothing in those pro-
visions mandates compensation by the United States.
The Court of Federal Claims was also clearly correct
that it lacked jurisdiction to the extent that Mr. Banks was
asserting a federal civil rights violation as this claim is out-
side of its jurisdiction and cannot fairly be read to be based
on a money-mandating obligation on the United States
Case: 23-1797 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 12/14/2023
BANKS v. US 3
enforceable under the Tucker Act. See Drake v. United
States,
792 F. App’x 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citations
omitted). *
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Court of Federal Claims’ judgment is summar-
ily affirmed.
(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
December 14, 2023
Date
* Mr. Banks’ filings appear to seek review of a case
brought in the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia, No. 1:23-cv-01028, alleging civil rights viola-
tions. That case is outside of this court’s jurisdiction. See
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). Because Mr. Banks has already ap-
pealed that case to the appropriate regional court of ap-
peals, there is no need for us to consider transfer.
