David Horowitz, Trustee of Tara Lindsey Lasham, An Express Trust, Colleen Lasham,… v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DAVID HOROWITZ, TRUSTEE OF TARA LINDSEY
LASHAM, AN EXPRESS TRUST, COLLEEN
LASHAM, TRUSTEE OF TARA LINDSEY LASHAM,
AN EXPRESS TRUST,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1111
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-01087-MHS, Chief Judge Matthew H. Sol-
omson.
______________________
Decided: May 6, 2026
______________________
D AVID H OROWITZ, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
COLLEEN L ASHAM , Sacramento, CA, pro se.
N ELSON K UAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
Case: 25-1111 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 1 of 7 --

HOROWITZ v. US 2
D EBORAH ANN BYNUM , P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY , BRETT
SHUMATE.
______________________
Before T ARANTO, SCHALL , and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Pro se appellants David Horowitz and Colleen Lasham
assert that they are trustees of a foreign situs express trust
(the Trust) that names Tara Lindsey Lasham as both the
beneficiary and grantor. In 2024, appellants filed a com-
plaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims
(Claims Court) alleging that the United States and the
State of Hawaii, also acting as trustees, breached certain
fiduciary duties and failed to fulfill obligations in the ad-
ministration of the Trust. See generally Horowitz v. United
States, No. 24-1087C, 2024 WL 4360010 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 1,
2024) (Decision). Appellants sought declaratory relief and
an order recognizing them as the Trust’s “rightful repre-
sentatives.” See Decision, at *1. The Claims Court dis-
missed the complaint for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, prompting the present appeal. Id., at *2. We
affirm the Claims Court’s dismissal.
I
Appellants filed their complaint in the Claims Court
against the State of Hawaii and the United States in July
2024. Appx. 13–19.1 They alleged that Hawaii and the
United States, acting through numerous state and federal
officials, served as “public trustees” of the Trust but
breached Trust-imposed duties regarding unspecified
Trust property. Appx. 14, 17–18. Appellants sought equi-
table relief, requesting that the Claims Court (1) recognize
them as trustees of the Trust and (2) order Hawaii and the
1 “Appx.” refers to the appendix submitted with ap-
pellants’ opening brief.
Case: 25-1111 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 2 of 7 --

HOROWITZ v. US 3
United States to “provide a full accounting and transfer all
rights, titles and interests” in the Trust to them. Appx. 16.
The Claims Court sua sponte stayed the case while it
reviewed the complaint for probable lack of jurisdiction.
See Decision, at *1. Appellants filed a motion for reconsid-
eration of the stay, arguing that the court’s suggestion of
no jurisdiction was “predicated on a probable misclassifica-
tion of the [appellants’] claims.” Appx. 111–12. Appellants
did not seek leave to amend their complaint. See Appx. 11.
In October 2024, the Claims Court, besides denying the
motion for reconsideration, dismissed Appellants’ com-
plaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to
Rule of the Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) 12(h)(3). De-
cision, at *2. The Claims Court stated that it lacked juris-
diction to decide claims against individuals (whether in
their official or personal capacity) or against state and local
governments (including their employees). Id. The court
added that appellants also failed to identify a substantive,
money-mandating basis for relief, which is needed for
Tucker Act jurisdiction and must be found outside the
Tucker Act itself. Id.; see 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). For those
reasons, the Claims Court dismissed the complaint for lack
of jurisdiction. See Decision, at *2.
Appellants timely appealed. We have jurisdiction to
hear the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
II
We decide de novo whether the Claims Court has sub-
ject-matter jurisdiction in this case, as the challenge to ju-
risdiction does not depend on disputing the plausible facts
asserted in the complaint. See 112 Genesee Street, LLC v.
United States, 166 F.4th 1017, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2026). To
the extent that appellants argue that the Claims Court im-
plicitly denied them leave to amend the complaint, we re-
view the Claims Court’s decision for an abuse of discretion.
Case: 25-1111 Document: 45 Page: 3 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 3 of 7 --

HOROWITZ v. US 4
See Steffen v. United States, 995 F.3d 1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2021).
The Tucker Act grants the Claims Court subject-mat-
ter jurisdiction for claims brought “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 liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases
not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Through the
Tucker Act, the United States waives its sovereign immun-
ity for covered damages actions. See Maine Community
Health Options v. United States, 590 U.S. 296, 322 (2020).
Claims for equitable relief do not fall within the Claims
Court’s limited Tucker Act jurisdiction relevant here. See
Boaz Housing Authority v. United States, 994 F.3d 1359,
1366–68 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The Tucker Act itself does not create “substantive
rights.” Maine Community Health, 590 U.S. at 322 (inter-
nal citation omitted). Plaintiffs seeking to invoke the juris-
diction under the Tucker Act must ground their claims in
“other sources of law” such as “statutes or contracts” that
create a right to money damages for the wrong alleged. See
id. (quoting United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287,
290 (2009)). A source of law assertedly making the chal-
lenged conduct wrongful “falls within the Tucker Act’s sov-
ereign immunity waiver if it is money-mandating—i.e., if it
can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by
the Federal Government for the damage sustained.” 112
Genesee Street, 166 F.4th at 1022 (quoting Maine Commu-
nity Health, 590 U.S. at 322 (cleaned up)). An independent
source of a substantive right to money damages, such as a
statute establishing a trust relationship between individu-
als and the government, may “establish[ ] specific fiduciary
or other duties” and may “fairly be interpreted as mandat-
ing compensation for damages sustained as a result of a
breach of the duties [the governing law] impose[s].” United
States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488, 506 (2003) (internal
Case: 25-1111 Document: 45 Page: 4 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 4 of 7 --

HOROWITZ v. US 5
citation and quotation marks omitted, second and third al-
terations in original).
The Claims Court, like a district court, can inde-
pendently take notice of the absence of subject-matter ju-
risdiction at any time. See RCFC 12(h)(3); Arbaugh v. Y&H
Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506–07 (2006) (discussing Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), which is materially iden-
tical to the Claims Court rule). In deciding whether the
court has subject-matter jurisdiction, the court “accepts as
true all uncontroverted factual allegations in the complaint
. . . and construes them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” Estes Express Lines v. United States, 739 F.3d
689, 692 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Although the Claims Court may
read the allegations of pro se pleadings more liberally than
formal pleadings by lawyers, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972), pro se plaintiffs are not held to less strin-
gent standards when it comes to meeting jurisdictional re-
quirements like those at issue here, see Kelley v. Secretary,
United States Department of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380
(Fed. Cir. 1987). Pro se plaintiffs still bear the burden to
plead an adequate basis for subject-matter jurisdiction.
See Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir.
1995) (“The fact that [a party] acted pro se in the drafting
of his complaint may explain its ambiguities, but it does
not excuse its failures,” e.g., the failure to establish subject-
matter jurisdiction). The Supreme Court’s decision in
Haines did not involve a jurisdictional issue.
Appellants’ allegations, based on their assertion of a
trust of which the United States is a trustee, are insuffi-
cient to support Tucker Act jurisdiction. First, appellants
have continuously expressed, including in their briefing on
appeal, that they are seeking only equitable relief, which
falls outside of the Claims Court’s limited jurisdiction. See
Appellants’ Opening Br. at 5, 6, 7, 9; Appellants’ Reply Br.
at 5, 6, 7; Appx. 112 (motion for reconsideration, stating
that appellants are seeking “equitable relief”). But, as al-
ready noted, the Tucker Act does not provide a grant of
Case: 25-1111 Document: 45 Page: 5 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 5 of 7 --

HOROWITZ v. US 6
jurisdiction to issue the equitable relief requested by appel-
lants here.
Second, as also previously noted, the Tucker Act does
not confer substantive rights enforceable against the
United States; such rights must be found in some other
source of law that mandates monetary payment for the con-
duct at issue in the case. See, e.g., Maine Community
Health, 590 U.S. at 322; United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S.
206, 216–17 (1983). But in claiming that the government
owes duties to the Trust, appellants simply have not
pointed to any source of law “establish[ing a] fiduciary re-
lationship” or “defin[ing] the contours of the [Govern-
ment’s] fiduciary responsibilities.” Inter-Tribal Council of
Arizona, Inc. v. United States, 956 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed.
Cir. 2020) (third alteration in original) (quoting Shoshone
Indian Tribe of Wind River Reservation, Wyoming v.
United States, 672 F.3d 1021, 1039–40 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
Although, as the cited cases indicate, a federally estab-
lished trust can sometimes support a Tucker Act claim for
damages, i.e., where an identified source of law outside the
Tucker Act meets the money-mandating standards for the
particular trust, appellants have not pleaded or in briefing
pointed to any such source of law for the trust they allege
in this case.2
Appellants argue that the Claims Court improperly de-
nied them leave to amend their complaint to cure any
2 To the extent that the complaint could be read as
asserting claims against certain federal officials, the State
of Hawaii, or certain state or local officials (e.g., by alleging
that they are “trustees” of the Trust), the Claims Court cor-
rectly dismissed those claims, Decision, at *2, based on the
established principle that the Tucker Act does not cover
claims against persons other than the United States. See
United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941).
Case: 25-1111 Document: 45 Page: 6 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 6 of 7 --

HOROWITZ v. US 7
jurisdictional deficiencies. Appellants’ Opening Br. at 6.
But even putting aside the fact that appellants did not ac-
tually request leave to amend, we see no merit in this chal-
lenge. Appellants have furnished no basis for identifying
how any amendment would cure the jurisdictional deficien-
cies in their complaint.
Because appellants have not made any allegations that
suffice to support the Claims Court’s jurisdiction, and their
briefs do not suggest that any amendment would cure that
deficiency, we will not disturb the Claims Court’s dismissal
of their case.
III
We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm the Claims Court’s dismissal for lack of subject-mat-
ter jurisdiction.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
AFFIRMED
Case: 25-1111 Document: 45 Page: 7 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 7 of 7 --