Scott Gene Yahne v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SCOTT GENE YAHNE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1827
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-01881-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R
The United States moves to summarily affirm the judg-
ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismiss-
ing Scott Gene Yahne’s complaint. Mr. Yahne submits a
notice requesting relief on the merits. We now grant the
United States’s motion.
Mr. Yahne filed this suit against the United States
“d/b/a” as “IRS Agent John Does 1-100,” the California
Case: 26-1827 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 07/30/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

YAHNE v. US 2
Franchise Tax Board, an Assistant Attorney General, a
United States attorney, an “ACS Support” operations man-
ager, and a district court judge and the Clerk of Court of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California. ECF No. 3 at A9. He alleged “unfair and de-
ceptive trade practices . . . addressed by various consumer
protection laws” and “breach of contract” with the Depart-
ment of Treasury for “financial instrument processing,
Bonds[.]” Id. at A10, A13–A14. In his opposition to the
government’s motion to dismiss, he elaborated that his
birth certificate has a “currency value” over one billion dol-
lars. Dkt. No. 16-1 at 34, see also id. at 38. The trial court
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a
claim for relief.
We agree with the government that summary affir-
mance is appropriate because dismissal here was “so
clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial ques-
tion regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.” Joshua v.
United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Court
of Federal Claims was clearly correct that claims aimed at
parties other than the United States and claims for unfair
and deceptive trade practices sounding in tort fall outside
its limited jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); United
States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941). The Court of
Federal Claims was also clearly correct in dismissing the
remainder of the action, as Mr. Yahne’s complaint did not
plead facts supporting a plausible inference that he was in
contractual privity with the United States or otherwise had
any cognizable claim within the court’s jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
(1) The United States’s motion is granted. The Court
of Federal Claims’s judgment is summarily affirmed.
Case: 26-1827 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 07/30/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

YAHNE v. US 3
(2) Relief requested by Mr. Yahne is denied.
(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
July 30, 2026
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 26-1827 Document: 6 Page: 3 Filed: 07/30/2026

-- 3 of 3 --