Howard v. U.S. [Corrected Coversheet], 230 F. App'x 975 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Howard v. U.S. [Corrected Coversheet], 230 F. App'x 975 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Ilaw v. United States (uscfc, 2015-06-04)
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#8 28 U.S.C. § 1916 cited 3× in this case · 281 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ilaw v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2015 · confidence medium
Cir. 2008); Eskridge Research Corp. v. United States, 92 Fed.Cl. 88, 95 (2010) (citing Howard v. United States, 230 Fed.Appx. 975, 976 (Fed.Cir.) (“The United States is the only proper defendant before the Court of Federal Claims.”), reh’g denied (Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Barnard v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2015 · confidence medium
C|.88,95 (2010) (citing Howard v. United States, 230 F. App'x 975, 976 (Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barnard v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2015 · confidence medium
See Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) 10(a) (2014); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (a); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 , 61 S.Ct. 767 , 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941) (citation omitted) (“[l]f the relief sought is against others than the United States the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court.” (citation omitted)); Slattery v. United States, 635 F.3d 1298 , 1321 n. 1 (Fed.Cir.2011), aff'd 710 F.3d 1336 (Fed.Cir.2013). cert. denied, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 1276 , 188 L.Ed.2d 297 (2014); May v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 442, 444 (“J…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cycenas v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2015 · confidence medium
Stated differently, “the only proper defendant for any matter before this court is the United States, not its officers, nor any other individual.” Stephenson v. United States, 58 Fed.Cl. 186, 190 (2003) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. at 588 , 61 S.Ct. 767 ; Anderson v. United States, 117 Fed.Cl. 330, 331 (2014) (“This court does not have jurisdiction over any claims alleged against states, localities, state and local government entities, or state and local government officials and employees; jurisdiction only extends to suits against the United State…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cycenas v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2015 · confidence medium
Cl. 88, 95 (2010) (citing Howard v. United States, 230 F. App'x 975, 976 (Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eskridge Research Corp. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2010 · confidence medium
“The United States is the only proper defendant before the Court of Federal Claims.” Howard v. United States, 230 Fed.Appx. 975, 976 (Fed.Cir.2007) (citing United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 , 61 S.Ct. 767 , 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941) (“if the relief sought [in the Court of Federal Claims] is against others than the United States the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court”)); see also McGrath v. United States, 85 Fed.Cl. 769, 772 (2009); Applications Research Corp., Comp.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jefferson v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See RCFC 10(a) (2011); see also Eskridge Research Corp. v. United States, 92 Fed.Cl. 88, 95 (2010) (citing Howard v. United States, 230 Fed.Appx. 975, 976 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g denied, (2007)); Shalhoub v. United States, 75 Fed.Cl. 584, 585 (2007).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jones v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See RCFC 10(a) (2011); see also Eskridge Research Corp. v. United States, 92 Fed.Cl. 88, 95 (2010) (citing Howard v. United States, 230 Fed.Appx. 975, 976 (Fed.Cir.2007)); Shalhoub v. United States, 75 Fed.Cl. 584, 585 (2007).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Braho v. Not Identified
Fed. Cl. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See RCFC, 10(a) (2010); see also Eskridge Research Corp. v. United States, 92 Fed.Cl. 88, 95 (2010) (citing Howard v. United States, 230 Fed.Appx. 975, 976 (Fed.Cir.2007)); Shalhoub v. United States, 75 Fed.Cl. 584, 585 (2007).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Andre Joel HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee
2007-5035.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Apr 9, 2007.
230 F. App'x 975
Andre Joel Howard, of Houston, Texas, pro se., Joan Stentiford, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. With her on the brief were Peter D. Keis-ler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne Davidson, Director, and Steven J. Gilling-ham, Assistant Director.
Mayer, Rader, Garbis.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Unpublished
PER CURIAM.

The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Andre J. Howard’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Howard v. United States, 74 Fed.Cl. 676 (2006) Finding no reversible error, this court affirms.

In reviewing judgments of the Court of Federal Claims, this court reviews conclusions of law, such as contract or statutory interpretation, without deference. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.Cir.2001); Kane v. United States, 43 F.3d 1446, 1448 (Fed.Cir.1994). This court reviews findings of facts under the “clearly erroneous” standard. City of El Centro v. United States, 922 F.2d 816, 819 (Fed.Cir.1990). This court also reviews without deference whether the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed a complaint for failure to state a claim. United Pacific Ins. Co. v. United States, 464 F.3d 1325, (Fed.Cir.2006).

In his complaint to this court and the trial court below, Mr. Howard proffers vague assertions of violations of 28 U.S.C. § 1916 (2006) and violations of the due process and takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In particular, Mr. Howard asserts unspecified lack of due process from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and improper manipulations of the judicial system by the Unites States Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit in support of the DOJ. The trial court found no allegations of an actual taking of property without just compensation. Nor does this court. Further, Mr. Howard’s attempt to name the Fifth Circuit as a defendant is unavailing. The United States is the only proper defendant before the Court of Federal Claims. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941) (holding relief sought against others than the United States must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court). Regarding Mr. Howard’s allegations under 28 U.S.C. § 1916, this code section allows seamen, without paying fess or costs, to file suits and appeals concerning their wages, salvage, and for enforcement of laws governing their health and safety. 28 U.S.C. § 1916. Section 1916, however, does not entitle a plaintiff monetary relief against the United States.

Mr. Howard has not identified any violation of any money-mandating source for which the trial court can grant monetary relief. Accordingly, this court affirms.