This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions, one summary affirmance, and four orders dismissing appeals. The nonprecedential opinions affirm a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing a pro se case for lack of jurisdiction, a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming a dismissal by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals for lack of jurisdiction, and a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing an appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmance and dismissals.

Lofton v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Somona Lofton sued the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court), seeking an award of two million dollars and other judicial action (including imprisonment of the California Governor and other persons). Ms. Lofton alleged that several federal agencies, along with federal and state officials, “use[d] [her] for an illegal human experiment” in violation of several federal constitutional and statutory provisions, a federal regulation, and a California state statute. SAppx. 4. The United States moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, but Ms. Lofton never filed a response. Eleven days after the deadline to respond had passed, the Claims Court sua sponte dismissed the case for failure to prosecute under Claims Court Rule 41(b). Ms. Lofton appeals that dismissal. Because we conclude that the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction, we affirm the Claims Court’s dismissal.

Andrews v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

The Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) took nearly 17 years to adjudicate Tyrone Andrews’ request for an extension of his vocational rehabilitation benefits. When the VA finally denied his request, Andrews asked for equitable relief. When the VA declined to grant such relief, Andrews appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”), which determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the VA’s decision. Andrews then appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), which affirmed. He now appeals to us.

While we are sympathetic to Andrews and agree that no veteran should be mired in the VA benefits system for nearly two decades without a decision, the Board correctly determined it had no jurisdiction to hear Andrews’ appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the Veterans Court.

Simpkins v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

Edward J. Simpkins appeals a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing his appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the Board properly dismissed Mr. Simpkins’s appeal, we affirm.

Rule 36 Judgment