Howard v. United States, 16-1302

Millie Howard (pro se) sued in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims challenging the Southern District of Ohio’s dismissal of her claim for a widow annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act and the district court’s denial of her motion to transfer the case to this Court.
Howard alleges she was entitled to a widow annuity based on her deceased husband’s employment with Norfolk Southern and that the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board improperly denied benefits and transferred her claim to Social Security.
Howard previously litigated the same benefits claim in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, which dismissed her suit and denied transfer on September 15, 2016.
In this filing she sought review of the district court’s dismissal and the denial of transfer and asked the Claims Court to appoint a special prosecutor to reexamine the record.
The Court of Federal Claims evaluated jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and RCFC 12(h)(3), noting that it has limited jurisdiction and cannot review decisions of federal district courts relating to proceedings before those courts.
The Court concluded, reading Howard’s complaint liberally as a pro se plaintiff, that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint; final judgment was entered for the government.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court of Federal Claims may review the district court’s dismissal of Howard’s Railroad Retirement Act claim	Howard asks the Claims Court to review and overturn the Southern District of Ohio’s dismissal	The government (and governing precedent) contends the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to review district court decisions	The Court held it lacks jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint under RCFC 12(h)(3)
Whether the Court may review the district court’s denial of Howard’s motion to transfer the case to the Claims Court	Howard contends the denial should be reviewed and the case transferred here	The government argues the Claims Court cannot review or reverse district court procedural rulings	The Court held it lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of transfer and dismissed that claim as well

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se complaints held to less stringent pleading standards)
Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act confers jurisdiction but does not create substantive money-mandating rights)
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (statutes are money-mandating if they fairly can be interpreted as mandating compensation)
Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (money-mandating statute/regulation requirement for Claims Court jurisdiction)
Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Fed. Cir.) (Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to review decisions of district courts)
Kroll v. Finnerty, 242 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir.) (Courts must dismiss claims that are "absolutely devoid of merit" for jurisdictional reasons)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived)
Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (courts independently must ensure they have jurisdiction)
Special Devices, Inc. v. OEA Inc., 269 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir.) (court’s duty to inquire into jurisdiction)
Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
Norman v. United States, 429 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir.) (requirement to identify money-mandating source for Tucker Act jurisdiction)