This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, an errata, and a Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims. One of the nonprecedential opinions addresses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other comes in a pro se appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the errata and Rule 36 judgment.
Winnemucca Indian Colony v. United States (Precedential)
The Winnemucca Indian Colony (“Colony”) brought suit against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) asserting claims based on alleged statutory violations and breaches of trust duties relating to tribal land and water rights. The Claims Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Winnemucca Indian Colony v. United States, 167 Fed. Cl. 396, 401 (2023) (“Decision”). The Claims Court determined that some claims were barred because they failed to identify a money-mandating source of law, some were time-barred by the statute of limitations, some were barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1500 due to an earlier filed action in district court, and some otherwise requested equitable relief outside of the Claims Court’s jurisdiction. We affirm.
Bumgardner v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Anita Bumgardner, surviving spouse of Army veteran Clifford Bumgardner, appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). Ms. Bumgardner’s appeal challenges the Veterans Court’s determination to affirm the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which denied service connection for Mr. Bumgardner’s cause of death and Ms. Bumgardner’s entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation. Ms. Bumgardner raises numerous issues challenging factual determinations or that require the application of law to fact. She fails, however, to challenge any particular aspect of the Veterans Court’s decision based on a rule of law or the validity or interpretation of any statute or regulation. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c), (d)(1); see id. § 7292(d)(2) (This court “may not review” “a challenge to a factual determination” or “a challenge to a law . . . as applied to the facts of a particular case.”). We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Polinski v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Peter Polinski, appearing pro se, appeals from the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) decision dismissing his complaint for failure to prosecute. See Polinski v. United States, No. 24-2136C, 2025 WL 462603 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 11, 2025) (Decision). For the following reasons, we affirm.