John D. Horton v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JOHN D. HORTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1897
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-00853-CNL, Judge Carolyn N. Lerner.
______________________
Decided: January 14, 2026
______________________
J OHN D. HORTON, Washington, DC, pro se.
STEPHEN J. SMITH , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented
by D EBORAH ANN BYNUM , P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY , BRETT
SHUMATE.
______________________
Before P ROST , CUNNINGHAM , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 25-1897 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 01/14/2026

-- 1 of 6 --

HORTON v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
John D. Horton appeals a decision of the United States
Court of Federal Claims dismissing without prejudice his
complaint seeking relief for alleged theft of Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) benefits from his
Electronic Benefits Transfer (“EBT”) account. See Horton
v. United States, No. 25-853, 2025 WL 1648948 (Fed. Cl.
June 10, 2025) (“Decision”). For the reasons discussed be-
low, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 19, 2025, Mr. Horton filed a complaint with
the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that convenience
stores in Philadelphia and New Jersey acquired his EBT
account number and personal identification number
through the “negligence or willfulness” of federal and/or
contractor employees at the United States Department of
Agriculture (“USDA”), Conduent.com, and private banks.
Decision at *1. Mr. Horton alleged in his complaint that
these actions constituted a taking in violation of the Fifth
Amendment. Id. Mr. Horton also moved to proceed in
forma pauperis. Id.
The Court of Federal Claims granted Mr. Horton’s mo-
tion to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed his case
without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Id. at *2; S. App’x 4–5.1 The Court of Federal Claims con-
cluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction for two
reasons. First, Mr. Horton made no allegations against the
United States government. Decision at *1. Second,
Mr. Horton did not allege a nonfrivolous takings claim. Id.
at *1–2. Specifically, the Court of Federal Claims deter-
mined that Mr. Horton did not set forth an adequate
1 We refer to the supplemental appendix filed with
the government’s informal brief, ECF No. 5, as “S. App’x”
throughout this opinion.
Case: 25-1897 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 01/14/2026

-- 2 of 6 --

HORTON v. US 3
takings claim because he did not allege “that the Govern-
ment took his property for authorized public use and not
‘in violation of the law.’” Decision at *2 (citations omitted).
The Court of Federal Claims further determined that, even
accepting Mr. Horton’s allegations as true, the court “could
not compensate the unauthorized taking of private prop-
erty by an officer of the United States.” Id.
Mr. Horton timely appealed. We have jurisdiction un-
der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
II. D ISCUSSION
We review de novo decisions of the Court of Federal
Claims regarding subject-matter jurisdiction. Res. Conser-
vation Grp., LLC v. United States, 597 F.3d 1238, 1242
(Fed. Cir. 2010). Under the Tucker Act, the Court of Fed-
eral Claims has jurisdiction over “any claim against the
United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any
Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive depart-
ment, 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). “The
Tucker Act itself does not create a substantive cause of ac-
tion; in order to come within the jurisdictional reach and
the waiver [of sovereign immunity] of the Tucker Act, a
plaintiff must identify a separate source of substantive law
that creates the right to money damages.” Fisher v. United
States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations
omitted). While documents filed pro se are held to “less
stringent standards,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972), a pro se litigant still bears the burden of proving
that the Court of Federal Claims has subject-matter juris-
diction over the complaint. Sanders v. United States,
252 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
A.
We first address whether Mr. Horton’s case is one
“against the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
Case: 25-1897 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 01/14/2026

-- 3 of 6 --

HORTON v. US 4
Mr. Horton argues that the Court of Federal Claims has
subject-matter jurisdiction over his claim where he named
federal agencies or employees regardless of “whether pri-
vate actors are also involved.” Appellant’s Reply Br. 3. We
disagree.
The Court of Federal Claims did not err in determining
that it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Horton’s claims because
Mr. Horton makes no allegations against the government.
As stated in his complaint, Mr. Horton alleges his food
stamp benefits were stolen in Philadelphia and New Jersey
by convenience stores. See Complaint at 2–3, Horton
v. United States, No. 25-cv-00853-CNL (Fed. Cl. May 19,
2025) (“Complaint”). However, the Court of Federal
Claims is not permitted to hear claims against private en-
tities. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588
(1941) (noting that jurisdiction “is confined to the rendition
of money judgments in suits brought for that relief against
the United States, and if the relief sought is against others
than the United States the suit as to them must be ignored
as beyond the jurisdiction of the court.”(citations omitted)).
The Court of Federal Claims also does not have jurisdiction
over suits against federal officials in their individual capac-
ities. See Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624
(Fed. Cir. 1997). And although Mr. Horton named the
USDA in his complaint and included the United States in
his caption, Complaint at 1, 3, he did not contend in his
complaint that “the government, through its system, failed
to provide a benefit or improperly handled funds it was ob-
ligated to provide under a federal program.” Appellant’s
Br. 8–9; see generally Complaint.2 Accordingly, the Court
2 Even if we accepted his new arguments on appeal,
which we need not do, he fails to state a claim for the rea-
sons stated below. Boggs v. West, 188 F.3d 1335, 1337–38
(Fed. Cir. 1999) (“As a general rule, an appellate court will
Case: 25-1897 Document: 11 Page: 4 Filed: 01/14/2026

-- 4 of 6 --

HORTON v. US 5
of Federal Claims correctly determined that it lacked juris-
diction in this case.
B.
Second, we address whether Mr. Horton sufficiently al-
leged a takings claim to establish jurisdiction. Mr. Horton
argues that a wrongful taking occurred when a USDA em-
ployee “brib[ed] her superiors all the way up to the Secre-
tary of the [USDA] to keep the slush money flowing”
thereby “establish[ing] a systematic ‘taking’ to further the
financial interests of the USDA employees above [that em-
ployee].” Appellant’s Br. 9–10. We disagree.
The Court of Federal Claims did not err in determining
that Mr. Horton failed to allege a nonfrivolous takings
claim. “A compensable taking arises only if the govern-
ment action in question is authorized.” Darby Dev. Co.
v. United States, 112 F.4th 1017, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2024)
(quoting Del-Rio Drilling Programs Inc. v. United States,
146 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Actions “‘outside the
normal scope of the government officials’ duties’ or done de-
spite an ‘explicit prohibit[ion]’” tend to be “unauthorized”
for takings claim purposes. Id. at 1025–26 (alteration in
original) (quoting Del-Rio Drilling Programs, 146 F.3d
at 1363). Here, Mr. Horton does not allege any facts that
can plausibly be taken to show that the federal employees
were acting in an authorized manner for the conduct he al-
leges. See Appellant’s Br. 9–10 (arguing that a federal em-
ployee stole millions in food stamps and bribed her
superiors). Moreover, to the extent that Mr. Horton’s alle-
gations suggest a tort claim, the Court of Federal Claims
lacks jurisdiction over cases “sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1). Therefore, the Court of Federal Claims did
not hear on appeal issues that were not clearly raised in
the proceedings below.”).
Case: 25-1897 Document: 11 Page: 5 Filed: 01/14/2026

-- 5 of 6 --

HORTON v. US 6
not err in determining that Mr. Horton did not sufficiently
allege a takings claim to establish jurisdiction.
III. CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Horton’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive.3 For the above rea-
sons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
3 Besides the Tucker Act, Mr. Horton identified the
Little Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2)) and the SNAP
statute (7 U.S.C. §§ 2011–2036) as bases for jurisdiction.
See Appellant’s Br. 7–9. The Little Tucker Act is inappli-
cable because it establishes jurisdiction in district courts,
concurrent with the Court of Federal Claims, for claims
that do not exceed $10,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a); Doe
v. United States, 372 F.3d 1308, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Fur-
thermore, to the extent Mr. Horton argues that the federal
statutes and regulations governing SNAP are money-man-
dating and that SNAP “theoretically” establishes an “im-
plied-in-fact contract” between the government and eligible
individuals, see Appellant’s Br. 7–9, these arguments are
forfeited on appeal because Mr. Horton did not properly
raise these arguments below. See Complaint at 1–4; Allen
v. United States, 88 F.4th 983, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (hold-
ing that appellant forfeited claims of constitutional viola-
tion not asserted before the Court of Federal Claims).
Case: 25-1897 Document: 11 Page: 6 Filed: 01/14/2026

-- 6 of 6 --