James Bennett v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JAMES BENNETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1674
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
Claims in No. 1:23-cv-00694-EMR, Judge Eleni M. Rou-
mel.
______________________
Decided: May 6, 2026
______________________
J AMES BENNETT , Rancho Santa Fe, CA, pro se.
K ELLY P ALAMAR , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
G EOFFREY M. L ONG , P ATRICIA M. MCC ARTHY , BRETT
SHUMATE.
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 24-1674 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 1 of 5 --

BENNETT v. US 2
James Bennett appeals a decision by the Court of
Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his Amended
Complaint. After Mr. Bennett’s Amended Complaint was
dismissed, he filed a motion for reconsideration. The
Claims Court granted Mr. Bennett’s motion for reconsid-
eration, struck its previous opinion dismissing the
Amended Complaint, and provided leave to amend.
Before the date specified for amendment expired,
Mr. Bennett appealed. We conclude that Mr. Bennett did
not appeal a final judgment and that we therefore lack
jurisdiction, and we dismiss the appeal.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Bennett was convicted of fraud on October 10,
2006, and incarcerated in a federal penitentiary. On
August 1, 2023, Mr. Bennett filed an Amended Complaint
against the United States alleging various causes of
action related to his contraction of tuberculosis during his
incarceration and the government’s alleged failure to
distribute the amount that Mr. Bennett paid in restitu-
tion to his victims. On August 15, 2023, the United
States moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursu-
ant to Rules of the Court of Federal Claims 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6). On February 9, 2024, the Claims Court granted
the United States’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, hold-
ing that the court lacked jurisdiction over the tort claims
and that the restitution claim was time-barred, and
entered judgment accordingly.
On March 8, 2024, Mr. Bennett filed a motion for re-
consideration alleging that the Claims Court failed to
consider certain documents appended to his Amended
Complaint that allegedly show, among other things, that
Case: 24-1674 Document: 54 Page: 2 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 2 of 5 --

BENNETT v. US 3
his restitution claim was timely.1 On October 31, 2024,
the Claims Court granted Mr. Bennett’s motion for recon-
sideration, ordered Mr. Bennett to file a Second Amended
Complaint by November 22, 2024, and directed the Clerk
of Court to strike the court’s previous order dismissing the
Complaint and to vacate the judgment. On November 26,
2024, the Claims Court consolidated Mr. Bennett’s case
with another action and directed him to file a Consolidat-
ed Amended Complaint by December 16, 2024.
Mr. Bennett did not file a Consolidated Amended Com-
plaint by this deadline. On December 23, 2024, the
Claims Court again directed Mr. Bennett to file his Con-
solidated Amended Complaint and extended the deadline
for filing to January 10, 2025. Before that extended
deadline passed, and without filing a Consolidated
Amended Complaint, Mr. Bennett filed a notice of appeal
on December 30, 2024.
D ISCUSSION
“[E]very federal appellate court has a special obliga-
tion to ‘satisfy itself . . . of its own jurisdiction[] . . . .’”
Merritt v. Wilkie, 965 F.3d 1357, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(alterations in original) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport
Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986)). We have
jurisdiction over “an appeal from a final decision of the
[Claims Court].” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) (emphasis added).
A final decision is one which “‘ends the litigation on the
merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute
the judgment.’” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord,
449 U.S. 368, 373 (1981) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand
v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978)).
1 While this motion was pending, Mr. Bennett filed
a notice of appeal. This court issued an order deactivat-
ing his appeal because it was premature. Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(4)(A).
Case: 24-1674 Document: 54 Page: 3 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 3 of 5 --

BENNETT v. US 4
The United States argues that we lack jurisdiction
over Mr. Bennett’s appeal because the Claims Court
granted leave to file an amended complaint. We agree.
In Jung v. K. & D. Min. Co., 356 U.S. 335 (1958), the
Supreme Court held that an order leaving in place the
dismissal of a complaint but granting leave to amend is
not an appealable final order. Id. at 336–37. Our sister
circuits have developed different rules establishing when
a plaintiff can stand on its original complaint and appeal
when the district court has granted leave to amend. Some
circuits require a plaintiff to indicate the intention to
stand on the complaint and to request that the district
court issue a final judgment dismissing the case without
leave to amend. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796–98
(4th Cir. 2022) (en banc); WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller,
104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); Sapp
v. City of Brooklyn Park, 825 F.3d 931, 934–935 (8th Cir.
2016); Moya v. Schollenbarger, 465 F.3d 444, 451
(10th Cir. 2006); Richards v. Dunne, 325 F.2d 155, 156
(1st Cir. 1963). Other circuits have held that an order of
dismissal with leave to amend becomes final automatical-
ly when the time granted for amendment has passed. See
Amaker v. Annucci, 721 F. App’x 82, 83 (2d Cir. 2018);
Otis v. City of Chicago, 29 F.3d 1159, 1168 (7th Cir. 1994)
(en banc); Schuurman v. Motor Vessel Betty K V, 798 F.2d
442, 445 (11th Cir. 1986). Still others allow a district
court’s order of dismissal with leave to amend to be treat-
ed as final, if the order indicates that the dismissal will
become final upon expiration of the deadline set to amend
the complaint. See Weber v. McGrogan, 939 F.3d 232,
238–40 (3d Cir. 2019); N. Am. Butterfly Ass’n v. Wolf,
977 F.3d 1244, 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
Under any of these standards, we lack jurisdiction
over Mr. Bennett’s appeal. Mr. Bennett did not indicate
his intention to stand on his Amended Complaint or
request that the Claims Court take further action before
he filed his notice of appeal. Nor when Mr. Bennett filed
Case: 24-1674 Document: 54 Page: 4 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 4 of 5 --

BENNETT v. US 5
his appeal had the time for amendment expired. And the
Claims Court did not indicate its intention that its dis-
missal would automatically ripen into a final judgment if
Mr. Bennett did not file a Consolidated Amended Com-
plaint.
Mr. Bennett argues that the disposition of a motion
for reconsideration restores the finality of the original
judgment under Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S. 504, 508
(2020). But here, the Claims Court granted Mr. Bennett’s
motion for reconsideration and vacated its previous judg-
ment. Under these circumstances, there is no final judg-
ment.
CONCLUSION
Because Mr. Bennett did not appeal a final judgment,
we lack jurisdiction over his appeal.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1674 Document: 54 Page: 5 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 5 of 5 --