U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2026

Augusta v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Decided April 15, 2026

Opinion

Case: 26-1040 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 04/15/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ANTHONY M. AUGUSTA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2026-1040 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:25-cv-01145-CNL, Judge Carolyn N. Lerner. ______________________ Decided: April 15, 2026 ______________________ ANTHONY M. AUGUSTA, Ocala, FL, pro se.

JAMES WILLIAM POIRIER, I, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus- tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre- sented by PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE, FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR. ______________________ Before PROST, CLEVENGER, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

Case: 26-1040 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 04/15/2026

2 AUGUSTA v. US

PER CURIAM.

Anthony M. Augusta appeals a decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. App’x 25–26. 1 For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND Mr. Augusta filed a complaint in the Claims Court seeking redress for the denial of his service-connected dis- ability benefits claim by the Department of Veterans Af- fairs (“VA”) and for alleged improprieties during the processing of his applications for VA benefits. App’x 25.

Mr. Augusta has filed numerous suits with the Claims Court, at least two of which concern the same general facts underlying his claims for relief sought in this case. See, e.g., Augusta v. United States, No. 1:18-cv-562, 2018 WL 2227779, at *1 (Fed. Cl. May 16, 2018) (“Augusta I”); Au- gusta v. United States, No. 1:18-cv-883, 2018 WL 6721748, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 20, 2018) (“Augusta II”).

In this case, the government filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Claims Court lacks subject-matter juris- diction. The Claims Court granted that motion, conclud- ing: (1) it lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Augusta’s allegations; and (2) Mr. Augusta’s allegations are precluded by res ju- dicata principles. App’x 25–26.

Mr. Augusta timely appealed. We have jurisdiction un- der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

1 “App’x” refers to the appendix included with Mr. Augusta’s informal opening brief at ECF No. 8. When citing specific pages, we cite the page numbers supplied by the electronic filing system in the header of the document.

Case: 26-1040 Document: 34 Page: 3 Filed: 04/15/2026

AUGUSTA v. US 3

DISCUSSION We review the determination of the Claims Court’s ju- risdiction de novo and any factual findings relating to ju- risdiction for clear error. Biafora v. United States, 773 F.3d 1326, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

Mr. Augusta’s main argument on appeal appears to be that the Claims Court erred in dismissing his constitu- tional due process claims concerning the alleged improper processing of his VA claim. That argument fails.

It is well established that the Claims Court lacks juris- diction over standalone due process claims because they do not constitute a money-mandating source of law. See, e.g., LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (due process claims do not form “a sufficient basis for jurisdiction because they do not mandate payment of money by the government”). Here, because Mr. Augusta argues only due-process claims, he has failed to identify a money-mandating source of law to confer the Claims Court with jurisdiction. To the extent he argues that the Tucker Act provides jurisdiction based on his underlying VA claim, Congress’s statutory scheme for adjudicating VA benefits claims displaces Tucker Act jurisdiction. See United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6, 12–13 (2012). 2 Furthermore, Mr. Augusta fails to demonstrate that res judicata principles are inapplicable. The Claims Court found that Mr. Augusta’s complaint “[e]cho[ed]” the claims made in two of his prior cases, and that res judicata

2 Mr. Augusta’s reliance on Cushman v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2009), is misplaced. Informal Re- ply Br. 3. Cushman’s acknowledgement that a veteran may have due-process rights concerning disability benefits adjudicated in the VA system does not create Tucker Act jurisdiction for the Claims Court. Cushman was an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Case: 26-1040 Document: 34 Page: 4 Filed: 04/15/2026

4 AUGUSTA v. US principles applied to the issues of jurisdiction. App’x 25–26. The Claims Court explained that Augusta I found “Congress vested exclusive jurisdiction over cases for vet- erans disability benefits with the Court of Appeals for Vet- erans Claims” and Augusta II disposed of his “[d]ue [p]rocess and [t]akings claims for lack of jurisdiction.”

App’x 25–26. Mr. Augusta’s failure to perfect an appeal in these prior cases confirms that he is foreclosed from raising the same jurisdictional issues in this case. See Int’l Air Re- sponse v. United States, 302 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

CONCLUSION We have considered Mr. Augusta’s remaining argu- ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea- sons, we affirm.

AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.