James Dean Nagy v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JAMES DEAN NAGY,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1154
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-00511-ZNS, Judge Zachary N. Somers.
______________________
Decided: May 8, 2026
______________________
J AMES D EAN N AGY , Highland, CA, pro se.
MATTHEW L EWIS , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
ELIZABETH M ARIE HOSFORD, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ,
BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
Case: 26-1154 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 05/08/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

NAGY v. US 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judge,
and K OVNER , District Judge.1
P ER CURIAM .
James Dean Nagy appeals an order of the United
States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Nagy filed a complaint in the Court of Federal
Claims seeking monetary relief from alleged civil rights vi-
olations, including the wrongful deprivation of Supple-
mental Security Income (SSI) by two Social Security
Administration offices. Appx. 9–11.2 The Government
moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or
alternatively, for failure to state a claim. Appx. 2. The
Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s motion
and dismissed Mr. Nagy’s complaint for lack of subject mat-
ter jurisdiction. Appx. 1. Mr. Nagy appeals. We have ju-
risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review de novo whether the Court of Federal
Claims has subject matter jurisdiction. 112 Genesee St.,
LLC v. United States, 166 F.4th 1017, 1021 (Fed. Cir.
2026). The Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims
subject matter jurisdiction for “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 liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases
1 Honorable Rachel P. Kovner, District Judge,
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, sitting by designation.
2 “Appx.” refers to the appendix attached to the Gov-
ernment’s brief.
Case: 26-1154 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 05/08/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

NAGY v. US 3
not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Under the
Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a money-mandating
source of law, which “can fairly be interpreted as mandat-
ing compensation by the Federal Government for the dam-
age sustained.” Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United
States, 590 U.S. 296, 322 (2020) (quoting United States v.
White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 472 (2003)).
Independent of the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1500 precludes
the Court of Federal Claims from exercising subject matter
jurisdiction over “any claim for or in respect to which the
plaintiff . . . has pending in any other court any suit or pro-
cess against the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1500; see
Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159,
1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining 28 U.S.C. § 1500 “gener-
ally prohibits simultaneous actions against the govern-
ment in separate forums”).
The Court of Federal Claims concluded 28 U.S.C.
§ 1500 barred jurisdiction because, at the time Mr. Nagy
filed his complaint, he had directly related claims for SSI
benefits pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. Appx. 4–5. The court also held that
“even if [Mr. Nagy’s] complaint were not barred by section
1500, it would nonetheless face dismissal . . . [because]
Mr. Nagy’s claims do not sufficiently allege any express or
implied-in-fact contract with the United States or any
money-mandating provision of law.” Id. at 5.
We agree with the Court of Federal Claims that
Mr. Nagy’s claims do not fall within the jurisdictional scope
of the Tucker Act, and we thus do not reach the application
of 28 U.S.C. § 1500’s jurisdictional bar. On appeal,
Mr. Nagy fails to identify any error in the Court of Federal
Claims’ jurisdictional analysis. Appellant Br. 1–3. He
simply asks us to reverse the court’s judgment and award
fourteen months of back pay for alleged wrongdoing involv-
ing the Social Security Administration’s SSI determina-
tions. Id. Our precedent is clear, however, that “the [Court
of Federal Claims] has no jurisdiction under the Tucker
Case: 26-1154 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 05/08/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

NAGY v. US 4
Act . . . over claims to social security benefits.” Marcus v.
United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990). And
while Mr. Nagy appears to complain his case “did not go to
trial” and “was not seen by a jury,” Appellant Br. 1–2, he is
not entitled to a trial in a court lacking jurisdiction over his
claims. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514
(2006) (“[W]hen a federal court concludes that it lacks sub-
ject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the com-
plaint in its entirety.”) Because the Court of Federal
Claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Nagy’s
claims, dismissal was appropriate.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Nagy’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. We are sympathetic to
Mr. Nagy’s representation that he is a “novice” to the judi-
cial process. Appellant Br. 3. His status as an inexperi-
enced pro se litigant, however, does not relieve him of
jurisdictional requirements. Roman v. United States, 61
F.4th 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 26-1154 Document: 14 Page: 4 Filed: 05/08/2026

-- 4 of 4 --