Jack Cuccia v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JACK CUCCIA,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1416
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-01049-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank
Horn.
______________________
Decided: December 8, 2025
______________________
J ACK CUCCIA, Jackson, LA, pro se.
EVAN W ISSER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Di-
vision, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by REGINALD
T HOMAS BLADES , J R., P ATRICIA M. MCC ARTHY , BRETT
SHUMATE.
______________________
Case: 25-1416 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 12/08/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

CUCCIA v. US 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, CHEN and STARK, Circuit
Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Jack Cuccia appeals a Court of Federal Claims decision
dismissing his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdic-
tion. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Cuccia is an inmate at a Louisiana state correc-
tional institute who invested $15,480 in an individual re-
tirement account (IRA) with the help of an Edwards Jones
financial advisor. See Appellant’s Br. 8; Appellee’s Br. 1;
S. Appx. 9.1 On June 13, 2024, Edward Jones notified
Mr. Cuccia that his IRA funds had been escheated to Loui-
siana’s Unclaimed Property Division. S. Appx. 10;
S. Appx. 15. Seeking to recover those funds, he filed a com-
plaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging Edward
Jones unlawfully allowed his account to be escheated and
failed to provide adequate disclosure of account activity.
S. Appx. 7; S. Appx. 10. His complaint requests a declara-
tory judgment that Edward Jones’ actions were unlawful
and fraudulent, and that Mr. Cuccia remains the legal
owner of the escheated account. S. Appx. 7; S. Appx. 10.
Although his complaint references various financial stat-
utes, it mentions neither the Tucker Act nor a money-man-
dating source—both prerequisites to invoke the Court of
Federal Claims’ jurisdiction. S. Appx. 6–7; 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491 (demarcating the Court of Federal Claims’ limited
jurisdiction). The Court of Federal Claims dismissed his
complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because he
did not assert any claims against the United States or its
1 “S. Appx.” refers to the supplemental appendix at-
tached to Appellee’s brief.
Case: 25-1416 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 12/08/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

CUCCIA v. US 3
employees. S. Appx. 4. Mr. Cuccia appeals. We have ju-
risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review de novo a decision by the Court of Federal
Claims to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. M. Maropakis
Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2010). The plaintiff bears the burden to establish sub-
ject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
Acevedo v. United States, 824 F.3d 1365, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
2016). The Tucker Act limits the Court of Federal Claims’
jurisdiction to “claim[s] against the United States founded
either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any
regulation of an executive department, or upon any express
or implied contract with the United States, or for liqui-
dated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in
tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491.
On appeal, Mr. Cuccia argues the Court of Federal
Claims legally erred in dismissing his complaint because
Edward Jones is a federal agency that violated the Truth
in Lending Act by breaching its contract with Mr. Cuccia
and escheating his retirement funds without notice or per-
mission. Appellant’s Br. 1. We do not agree. Mr. Cuccia
offers no evidence that Edward Jones, a private financial
services firm, is an agency or acted on behalf of the United
States. See Appellant’s Br. 1–2; S. Appx. 6–7. Nor does he
allege any unlawful government conduct or request any re-
lief involving the government. See Appellant’s Br. 1–2. We
see no error in the court’s conclusion that it lacked subject-
matter jurisdiction. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S.
584, 588 (1941) (“[I]f the relief sought [in the Court of
Claims] is against [a party] other than the United States,
the suit as to [the party] must be ignored as beyond the
jurisdiction of the court.”).
Case: 25-1416 Document: 26 Page: 3 Filed: 12/08/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

CUCCIA v. US 4
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Cuccia’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1416 Document: 26 Page: 4 Filed: 12/08/2025

-- 4 of 4 --