John W. Markham v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JOHN W. MARKHAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1327
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-02049-PSH, Judge Philip S. Hadji.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before TARANTO , H UGHES , and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R
The United States moves for summary affirmance of
the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims.
John W. Markham responds and submits a motion to op-
pose summary affirmance. He also submits supplemental
authority in support of his opposition.
Case: 26-1327 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

MARKHAM v. US 2
In March 2025, Mr. Markham filed a complaint against
the United States Department of the Army at the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washing-
ton alleging he “had a federal employment contract with
the Dept. of the Army as a cardiac perfusionist” that was
“guaranteed for 15 years” and “illegally terminated” in
2009. Markham v. Dept. of the Army, No. 25-cv-5212 (W.D.
Wash. Mar. 13, 2025), ECF No. 1-1 at 1. Mr. Markham’s
complaint asserted claims of “discrimination,” “wrongful
termination,” “contract fraud,” “theft of $27,403.00” and
“defamation.” Id. at 2. In May 2025, the district court de-
nied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered
Mr. Markham to pay required filing fees or risk dismissal.
Markham, No. 25-cv-5212, ECF No. 10 at 3. He appealed
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
which dismissed in February 2026. Mr. Markham failed to
pay the required filing fees, and the district court dis-
missed his complaint on February 2, 2026.
In the interim, Mr. Markham filed the present action
in December 2025 at the Court of Federal Claims alleging
“a federal employment contract that [he] held directly with
the Dept. of the Army” as “a cardiac perfusionist” that was
“guaranteed for 15 years” and “illegally terminated” in
2009. ECF No. 6 at A7. The complaint indicates it “in-
volves the following issues: 1) The theft of $27,403.00,
2) wrongful termination, 3) defamation, 4) contract fraud
& 5) discrimination.” Id. The Court of Federal Claims dis-
missed for lack of jurisdiction, concluding the suit was
barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1500. Mr. Markham then ap-
pealed that ruling. The United States now moves for sum-
mary affirmance.
We agree that the judgment here was “so clearly cor-
rect as a matter of law that no substantial question regard-
ing the outcome of the appeal exists.” Joshua v. United
States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Although the
Court of Federal Claims generally has review authority
over breach-of-contract actions against the United States
Case: 26-1327 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

MARKHAM v. US 3
under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, section 1500 bars
its review of “any claim for or in respect to which the plain-
tiff . . . has pending in any other court any suit or process
against the United States.” Here, the action was clearly
pending in the Western District of Washington when Mr.
Markham filed the present action at the Court of Federal
Claims. And Mr. Markham does not dispute that the two
actions are “based on substantially the same operative
facts.” United States v. Tohono O’Odham Nation, 563 U.S.
307, 317 (2011).
Mr. Markham’s opening brief and other filings present
no cognizable argument that the Court of Federal Claims
erred in dismissing this action. Mr. Markham asks us to
ignore the significance of the district court action because
it was subsequently dismissed and because the district
court “never had proper jurisdiction over these matters.”
ECF No. 14 at 2. However, the jurisdictional determina-
tion regarding Mr. Markham’s complaint before the Court
of Federal Claims “depends upon the state of things at the
time of the action brought” in that court. Keene Corp. v.
United States, 508 U.S. 200, 207 (1993) (citation omitted).
Here, the district court action was still pending when he
filed the present suit, such that the court clearly lacked ju-
risdiction. Mr. Markham also suggests that a different con-
clusion is warranted because he was a contractor, not an
employee. But we fail to see how that would make a differ-
ence in the analysis here. We have considered his other
arguments but find that they do not raise a substantial
question regarding the outcome of this appeal. We there-
fore summarily affirm.1
1 As noted in the Court of Federal Claims’s dismis-
sal, upon completion of the other federal action, Mr. Mark-
man “is free to file suit again in th[at] Court if the statute
of limitations is no bar.” ECF No. 6 at A3 (citing United
Case: 26-1327 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

MARKHAM v. US 4
Accordingly,
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
(1) The United States’s motion is granted. The judg-
ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims is sum-
marily affirmed.
(2) All other pending motions are denied.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
June 2, 2026
Date
FOR THE C OURT
States v. Tohono O’Odham Nation, 563 U.S. 307, 318
(2011)).
Case: 26-1327 Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 4 of 4 --