Chantel Johnson v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CHANTEL JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1552
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-00919-MHS, Chief Judge Matthew H. Sol-
omson.
______________________
Decided: January 13, 2026
______________________
CHANTEL J OHNSON, Baltimore, MD, pro se.
D ELISA SANCHEZ, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY , CORINNE ANNE N IOSI, BRETT
SHUMATE.
______________________
Case: 25-1552 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 01/13/2026

-- 1 of 6 --

JOHNSON v. US 2
Before REYNA and CHEN, Circuit Judges, and F REEMAN,
District Judge.1
P ER CURIAM .
Chantel Johnson appeals a Court of Federal Claims
(Claims Court) decision dismissing her complaint for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to prosecute.
See Johnson v. United States, No. 24-919C, 2024 WL
3617171 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 1, 2024); S. Appx. 1–2.2 We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On June 12, 2024, Ms. Johnson filed a complaint
against the United States in the Claims Court alleging sev-
eral hardships she claims were intentionally inflicted
against her by private individuals and those employed by
the federal government. S. Appx. 27. Ms. Johnson seeks
(1) an order to “[the] SBA, HUD, HHS, Copyright Office
[and] ASCAP, to disclose, in writing, transactions and ac-
tivity regarding [her] personal and business accounts”;
(2) “monetary damages for [the] unauthorized use of [her]
songs and [to] cease activity related to the use of [her]
songs”; (3) “monetary damages for abuse, loss of wages, loss
of resources, loss of housing, and discrimination by DOJ,
HUD, and [HHS] . . . based on inaccurate medical records”;
and (4) an order to the Department of Education to “pro-
vide copies of original applications for the five student
loans, in the amount of $50,000, that they claim [she]
owe[s].” S. Appx. 9.
On August 1, 2024, the Claims Court dismissed all but
one claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Johnson,
1 Honorable Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge,
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, sitting by designation.
2 “S. Appx.” refers to the supplemental appendix at-
tached to Appellee’s informal brief.
Case: 25-1552 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 01/13/2026

-- 2 of 6 --

JOHNSON v. US 3
2024 WL 3617171 at *1, *3. The Claims Court concluded
that Ms. Johnson’s allegation that the HHS had overbilled
her for her utilities could be construed as an illegal exac-
tion. Id. at *2–3. The Claims Court allowed Ms. Johnson
approximately two months to file an amended complaint
that clarified whether she was alleging that the federal
government “unlawfully or improperly billed [her] and that
the government thus owes her a refund.” Id. at *3.
Ms. Johnson moved for reconsideration of the partial
dismissal order, which the Claims Court denied on October
30, 2024. S. Appx. 32. As part of that denial, the Claims
Court also extended the deadline for Ms. Johnson to file an
amended complaint for approximately another two
months. S. Appx. 32–33. When Ms. Johnson did not file
any amendment by the new deadline, the Claims Court is-
sued an order on December 9, 2024, directing that by Jan-
uary 9, 2025, Ms. Johnson must either show cause why her
complaint should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
or failure to prosecute, or to amend her complaint as previ-
ously ordered. S. Appx. 34. When the January 9 deadline
passed and Ms. Johnson had not filed an amended com-
plaint or responded to the show cause order, the Claims
Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety for lack of ju-
risdiction and for failure to prosecute pursuant to the
Claims Court’s orders. S. Appx. 1–2. Ms. Johnson appeals.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review de novo a decision by the Claims Court to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Res. Conservation Grp.,
LLC v. United States, 597 F.3d 1238, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
We review a dismissal for failure to prosecute for abuse of
discretion. Kadin Corp. v. United States, 782 F.2d 175, 176
(Fed. Cir. 1986). The plaintiff bears the burden to establish
subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evi-
dence. Acevedo v. United States, 824 F.3d 1365, 1368
(Fed. Cir. 2016). The Tucker Act limits the Claims Court’s
Case: 25-1552 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 01/13/2026

-- 3 of 6 --

JOHNSON v. US 4
jurisdiction to “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 liqui-
dated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in
tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
We see no error in the Claims Court’s dismissal of
Ms. Johnson’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for fail-
ure to prosecute. Although Ms. Johnson listed the names
of various federal agencies at the beginning of her com-
plaint, see S. Appx. 7, the complaint primarily focuses on
various difficulties she experienced with her health, id. at
8, 10–11, 16–17, 20; housing, id. at 10–14; employment, id.
at 11; job searches, id. at 12–13, 20, 22; landlord issues, id.
at 13; and the alleged copyright infringement of her songs,
id. at 14.
Most of these allegations fall outside the jurisdiction of
the Claims Court, as they pertain to the conduct of individ-
uals associated with private organizations, e.g., a security
guard, nurse, music producer, and therapist. See
S. Appx. 14; United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588
(1941) (explaining that the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction
to hear claims against any party other than the United
States). The Claims Court also correctly recognized that it
has no jurisdiction to hear Ms. Johnson’s claims involving
allegations of stalking and harassment, which are tort
claims. See Shearin v. United States, 992 F.2d 1195, 1197
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (“The Tucker Act expressly provides that
the ‘United States Court of Federal Claims shall have ju-
risdiction . . . in cases not sounding in tort.’” (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)) (alteration in original)). Although
Ms. Johnson’s complaint did allege that the HHS and HUD
“saw an opportunity to use [her] and [her] children as hu-
man guinea pigs,” S. Appx. 11, this allegation lacked any
detail to establish the Claims Court’s Tucker Act Jurisdic-
tion because it failed to describe what actions the Federal
agencies took, if any, see id. at 10–24. Accordingly, the
Case: 25-1552 Document: 17 Page: 4 Filed: 01/13/2026

-- 4 of 6 --

JOHNSON v. US 5
Claims Court committed no error in dismissing the com-
plaint in part for lack of jurisdiction.
While the allegation that HHS had overcharged
Ms. Johnson for utilities could amount to an illegal exac-
tion, the Claims Court is correct that the complaint, as
filed, did not plausibly allege an illegal exaction. See John-
son, 2024 WL 3617171, at *2–3. The Claims Court did not
abuse its discretion in directing Ms. Johnson to file an
amended complaint to provide additional factual allega-
tions for her potentially illegal exaction claim. It provided
Ms. Johnson ample opportunities to cure her defective com-
plaint, warning her that “Court-ordered deadlines are not
optional[,]” S. Appx. 33, and that if she did not “either:
(1) . . . show cause why [the Claims] Court should not dis-
miss her case for lack of jurisdiction and failure to prose-
cute; or (2) file the amended complaint as [the Claims
Court] previously ordered,” then the Claims Court “will dis-
miss this case.” S. Appx. 34. The Claims Court therefore
did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint for
failure to prosecute after Ms. Johnson did not meet the
court-ordered deadline. See Kadin, 782 F.2d at 176–77
(holding an order to show cause provides the plaintiff with
sufficient notice that a dismissal is imminent and that fail-
ure to respond will likely be fatal to its case).
On appeal, Ms. Johnson argues the Claims Court failed
to allow her to submit evidence or exhibits. Appellant’s In-
formal Br. 1.3 However, the allegations in the complaint,
with one exception, pertained to conduct that was outside
the jurisdiction of the Claims Court, and further evidence
about those allegations would not cure her complaint’s ju-
risdictional deficiencies. As to the one potential claim that
might have been stated in the complaint, Ms. Johnson
failed to provide the necessary facts in accordance with the
3 We cite to the ECF page numbers of Appellant’s In-
formal Brief.
Case: 25-1552 Document: 17 Page: 5 Filed: 01/13/2026

-- 5 of 6 --

JOHNSON v. US 6
Claims Court’s order. Accordingly, the Claims Court did
not fail to consider any relevant facts that could have pro-
vided Ms. Johnson a basis for relief from the Claims
Court’s dismissal.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Ms. Johnson’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1552 Document: 17 Page: 6 Filed: 01/13/2026

-- 6 of 6 --