Aaron Corbin Mazie v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
AARON CORBIN MAZIE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1230
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-01865-PSH, Judge Philip S. Hadji.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Aaron Corbin Mazie appeals from the final judgment of
the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The United States moves
for summary affirmance. ECF No. 4. Mr. Mazie opposes
Case: 26-1230 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 02/17/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

MAZIE v. US 2
and moves to hold the motion in abeyance, ECF No. 7.1 The
government opposes.
In April 2025, Mr. Mazie filed a petition at the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking
“[i]mmediate payment of $100.1 billion USD by the United
States government, in accordance with . . . the default
[judgment] entered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).” In re Ma-
zie, No. 25-1785 (3d Cir. Apr. 24, 2024), ECF No. 1 at 2. As
“evidence” of that judgment, he included a proposed order
he sought in New Jersey Family Court, which he was ask-
ing the Third Circuit to enforce, that would, among other
things, expunge his criminal record, restore his right to
possess firearms and pay him $100,000,000 in restitution
for violating his constitutional rights. Id. at 10–14.
In June 2025, the Third Circuit denied his petition.
Mr. Mazie moved for reconsideration, arguing that, be-
cause “[t]he Court has not issued any order vacating the
Rule 55(d) Default Judgment filed by Petitioner on this
docket,” the “Rule 55(d) default is now self-executing, and
enforceable as a treaty obligation under Article VI, Clause
2 of the United States Constitution (the Supremacy
Clause),” and “the effect of this default is to affirm the ob-
ligations of the United States as adjudicated in the original
default, including constitutional damages, injunctive re-
lief, and treaty recognition.” Mazie, No. 25-1785 (3d Cir.
June 13, 2025), ECF No. 35 at 1 (emphases omitted).
After the Third Circuit rejected his motions and pro-
hibited further filings in that court, Mr. Mazie filed this
1 Mr. Mazie, whose other submissions are in Eng-
lish, also submits documents largely in Latin. ECF No. 7
at 6–8 and ECF No. 6. The court takes no action on these
or any future submissions in this case not submitted in
English.
Case: 26-1230 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 02/17/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

MAZIE v. US 3
suit in the Court of Federal Claims. The complaint asserts
that the Third Circuit’s denial of his petition on a “Default
from a returned Proposed Order . . . that changed the re-
turn date past legal statute requirements, violating NJ Ct.
R. 1:6-3,” resulted in “a statement of promissory estoppel
for $100.1B.” Appx7. He further asserts that the federal
government, through “its own judicial and administrative
conduct,” including payment of social security benefits, rec-
ognized this payment obligation and he was requesting it
now “satisfy the full amount claimed by Plaintiff.” Appx7–
Appx8. Noting the lack of any default judgment and its
inability to review decisions of other courts, the Court of
Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, grants limited juris-
diction to the Court of Federal Claims over claims for
money damages against the United States based on a con-
tract, the Constitution, or other source of substantive law
that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation
by the Federal Government.” United States v. Navajo Na-
tion, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009). The Court of Federal Claims
was clearly correct that Mr. Mazie failed to identify any ba-
sis for granting such relief here. Mr. Mazie demanded pay-
ment based on the actions (or inactions) of the Third
Circuit and/or the New Jersey Family Court in his prior
cases. But it is well-settled that the Court of Federal
Claims “cannot entertain a taking claim that requires the
court to scrutinize the actions of another tribunal.” Vereda,
Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(cleaned up). And Mr. Mazie has not identified any other
plausible basis for jurisdiction over his claims. As such, we
agree summary affirmance is appropriate here. See Joshua
v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Accordingly,
Case: 26-1230 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 02/17/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

MAZIE v. US 4
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted.
The judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims
is summarily affirmed.
(2) The motion to stay is denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
February 17, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 26-1230 Document: 11 Page: 4 Filed: 02/17/2026

-- 4 of 4 --