Yahne v. United States

Case: 26-1827 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 07/30/2026

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________

SCOTT GENE YAHNE,

Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2026-1827 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:25-cv-01881-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.

______________________ ON MOTION ______________________

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

The United States moves to summarily affirm the judg- ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismiss- ing Scott Gene Yahne’s complaint. Mr. Yahne submits a notice requesting relief on the merits. We now grant the United States’s motion.

Mr. Yahne filed this suit against the United States “d/b/a” as “IRS Agent John Does 1-100,” the California Case: 26-1827 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 07/30/2026 2 YAHNE v. US Franchise Tax Board, an Assistant Attorney General, a United States attorney, an “ACS Support” operations man- ager, and a district court judge and the Clerk of Court of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. ECF No. 3 at A9. He alleged “unfair and de- ceptive trade practices . . . addressed by various consumer protection laws” and “breach of contract” with the Depart- ment of Treasury for “financial instrument processing, Bonds[.]” Id. at A10, A13–A14. In his opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss, he elaborated that his birth certificate has a “currency value” over one billion dol- lars. Dkt. No. 16-1 at 34, see also id. at 38. The trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim for relief.

We agree with the government that summary affir- mance is appropriate because dismissal here was “so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial ques- tion regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that claims aimed at parties other than the United States and claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices sounding in tort fall outside its limited jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941). The Court of Federal Claims was also clearly correct in dismissing the remainder of the action, as Mr. Yahne’s complaint did not plead facts supporting a plausible inference that he was in contractual privity with the United States or otherwise had any cognizable claim within the court’s jurisdiction.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The United States’s motion is granted. The Court of Federal Claims’s judgment is summarily affirmed. Case: 26-1827 Document: 6 Page: 3 Filed: 07/30/2026 YAHNE v. US 3

(2) Relief requested by Mr. Yahne is denied. (3) Each party shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT July 30, 2026

Date