Jacobs v. United States

Case: 26-1781 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 09/28/2026

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ERIKA JACOBS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2026-1781 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:26-cv-00205-RMM, Judge Robin M. Meriweather. ______________________ ON MOTION ______________________ PER CURIAM.

CORRECTED ORDER Erika Jacobs filed a complaint at the United States Court of Federal Claims against the “Supreme Court clerk administration” seeking damages and a reprimand for “misconduct,” “acting out of the scope of their job function,” and “causing the net loss of $1 billion dollars for unpro- cessed/incorrectly processed writ of certioraris to the Su- preme Court of U.S. from Plaintiff.” ECF No. 11 at Appx4– 10. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of Case: 26-1781 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 09/28/2026

2 JACOBS v. US jurisdiction, and Ms. Jacobs appealed. The United States now moves for summary affirmance. Ms. Jacobs opposes.

Summary disposition is appropriate when dismissal was “so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substan- tial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.”

Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

That is the case here. The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdic- tion only over claims for money damages against the United States government, but it provides no authority to hear claims “sounding in tort,” id., or claims “against indi- vidual federal officials,” Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997), or to collaterally review the Su- preme Court’s determinations, see generally Shinnecock In- dian Nation v. United States, 782 F.3d 1345, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Because there is no substantial question that the claims here fall outside the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, dismissal was clearly correct.

Accordingly, 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