Case: 24-1959 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 01/31/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

SOMONA LOFTON, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2024-1959 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-00727-EDK, Chief Judge Elaine Kaplan. ______________________

Decided: January 31, 2025 ______________________

SOMONA MARIE LOFTON, Napa, CA, pro se.

MEREDYTH COHEN HAVASY, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus- tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre- sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, DOUGLAS K. MICKLE. ______________________

Before STOLL, CLEVENGER, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. Case: 24-1959 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 01/31/2025

2 LOFTON v. US

PER CURIAM. Somona Lofton appeals the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismiss- ing her Complaint pursuant to Claims Court Rule 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Lofton v. United States, No. 24-727, 2024 WL 2814551 (Fed. Cl. June 3, 2024). Because we agree that the Claims Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Lofton’s Com- plaint, we affirm. BACKGROUND In her Claims Court Complaint, Ms. Lofton alleges that employees at Napa Valley College, a public commu- nity college in California, “conspire[d] to defraud Govern- ment Funds” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 by entering “false records” in her financial aid account. SAppx 7–8. 1 Ms. Lofton seeks $250,000 for emotional distress, home- lessness, body pains, head pains, and for missing parenting time. She also appears to seek a 10-year prison sentence for the accused Napa Valley College employees. The Claims Court dismissed Ms. Lofton’s Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for at least four rea- sons. First, the Claims Court stated that it had no juris- diction because Ms. Lofton’s Complaint alleges no claims against the United States. Second, if Ms. Lofton’s Com- plaint is to be construed against Napa Valley College itself, or against its employees within the scope of their employ- ment, the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over suits against states, local governments, their entities, or their employees. Third, the Claims Court has no jurisdiction over claims brought under the federal criminal code, such as 18 U.S.C. § 371. And fourth, to the extent Ms. Lofton

1 SAppx refers to the Supplemental Appendix filed with the Government’s Informal Brief. Case: 24-1959 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 01/31/2025

LOFTON v. US 3

alleges tort claims, the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to hear tort claims. Ms. Lofton timely appealed. We have jurisdiction un- der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). DISCUSSION On appeal, Ms. Lofton raises largely the same allega- tions she raised before the Claims Court. For instance, Ms. Lofton contests the dismissal of her Complaint, argu- ing that the “[C]alifornia student aid commission . . . cre- ate[d] accounts in students [sic] name to defraud funds.” Appellant’s Informal Br. 5. Ms. Lofton requests that we in- vestigate the California Student Aid Commission to deter- mine why there is an account in her name that she allegedly never created. Id. at 6. She also seeks $279,054 in damages. Id. at 3. We review the Claims Court’s dismissal for lack of sub- ject matter jurisdiction de novo. Adair v. United States, 497 F.3d 1244, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Under the Tucker Act, the Claims Court has 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). A plaintiff attempting to sue the United States in the Claims Court first must “identify a substan- tive right for money damages against the United States separate from the Tucker Act itself” before the court can address the claim’s merits. Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The United States is the only proper defendant in the Claims Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Here, we agree with the Claims Court that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Ms. Lofton’s Complaint because she fails to allege claims against the Case: 24-1959 Document: 32 Page: 4 Filed: 01/31/2025

4 LOFTON v. US

United States. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941). Broadly construed, Ms. Lofton’s allegations against Napa Valley College, its employees, the state of California, and private individuals do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Claims Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Similarly, to the extent Ms. Lofton attempts to allege tort claims, the allegations fail because the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to hear tort claims. Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Additionally, Ms. Lofton has not established subject matter jurisdiction because she alleges a violation of criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 371; 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. See Appellant’s Informal Br. 5; SAppx 7; Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1994). CONCLUSION We have considered Ms. Lofton’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons stated above, the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over Ms. Lofton’s claims, and properly dismissed the Complaint. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.