Jacobs v. United States

Case: 26-2149 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 09/22/2026

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________

NATHAN E. JACOBS,

Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2026-2149 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:26-cv-00847-PSH, Judge Philip S. Hadji.

______________________ ON MOTION ______________________

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Nathan E. Jacobs filed a complaint at the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking damages and for his criminal conviction to be “eradicated from all National and International System[s] of Records and Files.” ECF Case: 26-2149 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 09/22/2026 2 JACOBS v. US No. 3 at Appx8.1 The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and Mr. Jacobs appeals. The United States now moves for summary affirmance. Mr. Jacobs has not responded to the motion.

Summary disposition is appropriate because dismissal here was “so clearly correct as a matter of law that no sub- stantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal ex- ists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction only over claims for money damages against the United States government based on money-mandating sources of law. See United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009). It has no author- ity to review his criminal conviction or grant the relief re- quested here. See generally Joshua, 17 F.3d at 379 (“The court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims whatso- ever under the federal criminal code . . . .”). Because Mr. Jacobs clearly failed to assert a claim within the limited jurisdiction of the trial court, we summarily affirm.2

Accordingly, 1 According to the trial court’s decision, Mr. Jacobs included with his complaint “correspondence and docu- ments related to prior proceedings in other courts, includ- ing an arrest warrant, criminal complaint, and judgment filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.” ECF No. 3 at Appx2.

2 While Mr. Jacobs’s complaint generally asserted “[t]his is an ongoing ‘open ending contract’ to be resolved in the People’s Court,” ECF No. 3 at Appx8, he made no non- frivolous allegation that could give the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over his complaint. See Hercules Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417, 423 (1996) (explaining that al- leged implied-in-law contracts are outside the court’s juris- diction).

Case: 26-2149 Document: 4 Page: 3 Filed: 09/22/2026 JACOBS v. US 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The United States’s motion is granted. The judg- ment of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT September 22, 2026

Date