Case Explained: 26-1043: PIECZYNSKI v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-10

The federal-circuit affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing Paul E. Pieczynski’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that Pieczynski failed to satisfy the requirements of the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, which grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over money damages claims against the United States only when a plaintiff identifies a separate source of substantive law that creates a right to recovery and mandates payment from the government. The court applied the standard that while pro se plaintiffs are afforded greater latitude in pleading, they must still meet the same jurisdictional requirements as represented litigants. Pieczynski attempted to invoke the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 9, arguing it mandated compensation for an alleged arbitration award against state officials. The court rejected this, noting that the FAA is a mechanism for enforcing contract terms and does not provide for the payment of money damages from the United States Government, particularly where the government was not a named party to the arbitration. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to review decisions or dismissals made by federal district courts or circuit courts, as such review is not authorized under the Tucker Act or other applicable statutes. As a result of this decision, the dismissal of Pieczynski’s complaint stands, and he has no further avenue for relief in the Court of Federal Claims regarding these claims. The judgment is affirmed with no costs awarded.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.