Case: 20-1039 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 04/13/2020

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ LOUIS A. BANKS, AND, D. B., A MINOR CHILD, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2020-1039 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:19-cv-00334-LKG, Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby. ______________________ ORDER ______________________ PER CURIAM Louis A. Banks and D.B., his minor child, (“Banks”) have previously unsuccessfully invoked the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (“Superior Court”) and the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) seeking damages for injuries allegedly suffered by D.B., primarily stemming from an incident in- volving alleged actions by school employees in the District of Columbia.

Case: 20-1039 Document: 47 Page: 2 Filed: 04/13/2020

2 BANKS v. UNITED STATES

In the Superior Court, the United States failed to an- swer the summons issued to it. But because Banks did not specify the nature of his complaint, the Superior Court dis- missed his complaint without prejudice. Banks v. District of Columbia, No. 2017-CA-006401 (D.C. Super. Ct. Sept.

19, 2017).

Banks brought suit in the Claims Court against vari- ous officials in the District of Columbia and nominally against the United States seeking monetary damages for the alleged harm to D.B. Banks v. United States, No. 1:17- cv-00808 (Fed. Cl. Jun. 14, 2017). His complaint failed to identify claims against the United States, and because the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over the other individu- ally named defendants, his complaint was dismissed with- out prejudice by the Claims Court. Banks appealed the ruling of the Claims Court to this court, and we affirmed the judgment dismissing his claim for lack of jurisdiction.

Banks v. United States, 726 Fed. App’x 823, 825 (Fed. Cir. 2018) Banks brought a second suit in the Claims Court, again seeking monetary damages for the alleged harm to D.B.

Banks v. United States, No. 1-19-cv-00334 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 28, 2019). This second suit is the subject of this appeal. The Claims Court interpreted Banks’ complaint to challenge the failure of the United States to appear in the dismissed Superior Court proceeding as a violation of 20 U.S.C. § 7101 (addressing education as part of the Safe and Drug- Free Schools and Communities Act) and 28 U.S.C. § 2508 (addressing government counterclaims brought in the Claims Court). The complaint also referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and alleged that the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice are responsible for enforcement of federal civil rights laws. These references were treated by the Claims Court as asserting a violation of federal civil rights arising from D.B.’s treatment in the District of Co- lumbia schools. Rather than answer the complaint, the United States moved to dismiss the complaint for want of Case: 20-1039 Document: 47 Page: 3 Filed: 04/13/2020

BANKS v. UNITED STATES 3

jurisdiction. Banks filed a motion for default judgment against the United States based on its failure to answer the complaint.

The Claims Court granted the motion to dismiss and denied as moot Banks’ motion for a default judgment. The Claims Court explained in its opinion why the court lacked jurisdiction over Banks’ complaint. To the extent the com- plaint raised allegations of violation of federal civil rights law, the Claims Court explained that its precedent speci- fies that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over such claims, citing Jones v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 92, 98 (2012). Additional precedent supports this conclusion of the Claims Court. See Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over a Bivens claim, a cause of action for money damages to remedy constitutional violations caused by gov- ernment officials acting under color of federal law); Wild- man v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 494, 495 (1993) (citing Anderson v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 178, 179 n.2 (1990), aff’d, 937 F.2d 623 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (table) (finding no juris- diction over civil rights claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 or 1986 because jurisdiction over such claims resides exclusively in the U.S. district courts)).

With regard to Banks’ argument that the United States failed to appear in the Superior Court action, the Claims Court explained that where the plaintiff relies on a statute to support a claim the plaintiff must show that the named statute provides for monetary relief for its violation in or- der to invoke the jurisdiction of the Claims Court. The Claims Court noted that the two federal statutes cited by Banks to support his claim arising out of the Superior Court case did not appear related to his claim, but even if they were related, neither of the statutes provide for mon- etary relief. Finally, because the Claims Court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims averred in Banks’ complaint, it ruled that Banks’ motion for default judgment is moot.

Case: 20-1039 Document: 47 Page: 4 Filed: 04/13/2020

4 BANKS v. UNITED STATES

Banks timely appealed from the final judgment of the Claims Court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). We review the Claims Court’s jurisdictional ruling de novo as a question of law. Kam-Almaz v. United States, 682 F.3d 1364, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

We carefully reviewed the arguments Banks presents to this court and the opinion of the Claims Court dismiss- ing his complaint for want of jurisdiction. The Claims Court correctly held that Banks failed to present a claim over which the Claims Court has subject matter jurisdic- tion. Banks appears to contend on appeal that the Claims Court issued a default judgment in his favor, but the court merely granted Banks leave to file a motion for default judgment, a motion the court ultimately denied. We find no error in the judgment of the Claims Court, which we ac- cordingly affirm. A number of motions filed by Banks re- lating to our review of his appeal remain pending. All such motions are denied. The Order of the Claims Court dis- missing the complaint is AFFIRMED IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The Order of the Claims Court dismissing the com- plaint is affirmed. (2) Banks’ outstanding motions are denied.

FOR THE COURT April 13, 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court