Cuccia v. United States

Case: 25-1416 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 12/08/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________

JACK CUCCIA,

Plaintiff-Appellant v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2025-1416 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-01049-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank Horn.

______________________ Decided: December 8, 2025 ______________________

JACK CUCCIA, Jackson, LA, pro se.

EVAN WISSER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Di- vision, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE.

______________________

2 CUCCIA v. US

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, CHEN and STARK, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jack Cuccia appeals a Court of Federal Claims decision dismissing his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdic- tion. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Cuccia is an inmate at a Louisiana state correc- tional institute who invested $15,480 in an individual re- tirement account (IRA) with the help of an Edwards Jones financial advisor. See Appellant’s Br. 8; Appellee’s Br. 1; S. Appx. 9. 1 On June 13, 2024, Edward Jones notified Mr. Cuccia that his IRA funds had been escheated to Loui- siana’s Unclaimed Property Division. S. Appx. 10; S. Appx. 15. Seeking to recover those funds, he filed a com- plaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging Edward Jones unlawfully allowed his account to be escheated and failed to provide adequate disclosure of account activity. S. Appx. 7; S. Appx. 10. His complaint requests a declara- tory judgment that Edward Jones’ actions were unlawful and fraudulent, and that Mr. Cuccia remains the legal owner of the escheated account. S. Appx. 7; S. Appx. 10. Although his complaint references various financial stat- utes, it mentions neither the Tucker Act nor a money-man- dating source—both prerequisites to invoke the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction. S. Appx. 6–7; 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (demarcating the Court of Federal Claims’ limited jurisdiction). The Court of Federal Claims dismissed his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because he did not assert any claims against the United States or its CUCCIA v. US 3 employees. S. Appx. 4. Mr. Cuccia appeals. We have ju- risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

We review de novo a decision by the Court of Federal Claims to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The plaintiff bears the burden to establish sub- ject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Acevedo v. United States, 824 F.3d 1365, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Tucker Act limits the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction to “claim[s] against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liqui- dated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491.

On appeal, Mr. Cuccia argues the Court of Federal Claims legally erred in dismissing his complaint because Edward Jones is a federal agency that violated the Truth in Lending Act by breaching its contract with Mr. Cuccia and escheating his retirement funds without notice or per- mission. Appellant’s Br. 1. We do not agree. Mr. Cuccia offers no evidence that Edward Jones, a private financial services firm, is an agency or acted on behalf of the United States. See Appellant’s Br. 1–2; S. Appx. 6–7. Nor does he allege any unlawful government conduct or request any re- lief involving the government. See Appellant’s Br. 1–2. We see no error in the court’s conclusion that it lacked subject- matter jurisdiction. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (“[I]f the relief sought [in the Court of Claims] is against [a party] other than the United States, the suit as to [the party] must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court.”).

4 CUCCIA v. US

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Cuccia’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

AFFIRMED COSTS

No costs.