Full Opinion

Case: 26-1509 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 11/10/2026 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ MATTHEW-ALLEN MCCASTER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2026-1509 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-02027-EMR, Judge Eleni M. Roumel. ______________________ Decided: November 10, 2026 ______________________ THE MATHIAS EL TRIBE, Office of the Chief Justice and Trustee, Mathias El Tribe, Bakersfield, CA, pro se. ALBERT S. IAROSSI, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE. ______________________ Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. Case: 26-1509 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 11/10/2026 2 MCCASTER v. US PER CURIAM. In this unusual case, the appellant contends that the Court of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”) misidentified him as the plaintiff and that as a consequence the court denied the true plaintiff, The Mathias El Tribe (“the Tribe”), its day in court. I Appellant Matthew-Allen McCaster filed an amended complaint pro se in the Claims Court, asserting that he was acting in his capacity as “Chief of the Mathias El Tribe.” App. 52. 1 The amended complaint, brought under the Indian Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1505, sought monetary damages for the federal government’s alleged breaches of its trust obligations, treaty rights, and fiduciary duties to the Tribe. The court docketed the case as Matthew Allen McCaster v. United States, No. 24-2027. Mr. McMaster disagreed with that characterization and has referred to the case throughout the proceedings before the Claims Court and on appeal in this court as The Mathias El Tribe, an identifiable group of American Indians v. United States. 2 1 “App.” refers to the Appendix filed with the govern- ment’s informal response brief. See ECF No. 5. 2 The plaintiff’s name has been spelled in several dif- ferent ways at various points in the record. He styled his initial complaint and his amended complaint as Mathew- Allen McCaster v. United States. In the docket of the Court of Federal Claims and how this court docketed the case, his name is spelled Matthew Allen McCaster. In other places in the record, his name is spelled Matthew-Allen McCaster. In the notice of appeal, he refers to himself as Chief Ma- thias El. Case: 26-1509 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 11/10/2026 MCCASTER v. US 3 On August 11, 2025, the Claims Court dismissed Mr. McCaster’s amended complaint and entered judgment for the government. App. 28–51, 27. The court ruled that under Rule 83.1(a)(3) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court rules”), Mr. McCaster, a non-lawyer, could not represent the Tribe before the court. App. 36–37. The court further ruled that Mr. McCaster could not bring a claim under the Indian Tucker Act in his individual capacity, as the Act provides that only a “tribe, band, or other identifiable group” may pursue claims under the Act. App. 37. Mr. McCaster filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Claims Court Rule 59(e), a motion for relief from the judgment under Claims Court Rule 60, as well as a motion to vacate the judgment, to clarify the record, and to enforce a protective order. On October 23, 2025, the court entered an order denying each of those motions. App. 17–26. Four months later, Mr. McCaster filed another motion for post-judgment relief in the form of a motion to reopen and correct the record under Claims Court Rules 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(6). App. 14–16. The motion asked the court to reopen the case in order to “correct a jurisdictional mischaracterization that treated this action as one brought by an individual proceeding pro se, rather than by a tribal group within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1505.” App. 14. This court will revise its caption to reflect how the Claims Court’s order under review is captioned. For the reasons explained below, the court will deny the appel- lant’s motion in this appeal to change the official caption to reflect “The Mathias El Tribe, an identifiable group of American Indians,” as the Plaintiff-Appellant, see ECF No. 12. Case: 26-1509 Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 11/10/2026 4 MCCASTER v. US On February 19, 2026, the Claims Court denied those motions, noting that they were “repetitive of Plaintiff’s previous arguments, briefing, and motions.” App. 6. The court reiterated that “entities (including tribes) must be represented by barred attorneys” and that “a plaintiff cannot bring his Indian Tucker Act claims in a personal capacity, as Plaintiff seeks to do here.” App. 11. On March 6, 2026, Mr. McCaster filed a notice of appeal, which expressed his intention to appeal from each of the orders entered by the Claims Court, including the final judgment entered on August 11, 2025; the order denying his motion for reconsideration on October 23, 2025; the order seeking to reopen the record under Claims Court Rule 60 on February 19, 2026; and “all prior orders, rulings, and determinations that merged into or formed the basis of the final judgment.” App. 5. II On appeal, the government points out that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the August 11, 2025, judgment and the Claims Court’s October 23, 2025, rulings on the appellant’s motions for reconsideration. Appeals from judgments of the Claims Court must be filed within 60 days of the date that the judgment becomes final, which in this case was October 23, 2025. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b). This court is therefore jurisdictionally barred from reviewing those orders. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“Today we make clear that the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”); Fedora v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 848 F.3d 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Marandola v. United States, 518 F.3d 913, 914 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“An untimely appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the requirement cannot be waived, and is not subject to equitable tolling.”). The sole notice of appeal that was filed in this case was filed on March 6, 2026, which was 134 days after the Claims Court’s judgment became final on October 23, 2025. Case: 26-1509 Document: 19 Page: 5 Filed: 11/10/2026 MCCASTER v. US 5 Accordingly, the only order that is properly presented for appellate review is the Claims Court’s February 19, 2026, order denying Mr. McCaster’s motions to reopen and correct the record, for which the notice of appeal was timely filed. 3 In the February 19, 2026, motions, the Claims Court correctly characterized Mr. McCaster’s arguments as being that (1) The Mathias El Tribe should be treated as the plaintiff and therefore is eligible to invoke the Indian Tucker Act, and (2) he should be entitled to represent The Mathias El Tribe in his capacity as Chief Mathias El. The Claims Court was correct in rejecting Mr. McCaster’s arguments. As for Mr. McCaster’s assertion that he should be entitled to represent The Mathias El Tribe, the Claims Court correctly held that under Claims Court Rule 83.1(a)(3), a non-lawyer may not represent an entity, including an Indian tribe, before the court. 4 See Williams v. United States, 482 F. App’x 580, 582 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 5 3 Mr. McCaster concedes in his informal reply brief that the notice of appeal was untimely as to the August 11, 2025, judgment and the Claims Court’s October 23, 2025, rulings. See Appellant’s Inf. Reply Br. 1–2. 4 That rule provides as follows: “An individual who is not an attorney may represent oneself or a member of one’s immediate family, but may not represent a corpora- tion, an entity, or any other person in any proceeding be- fore this court.” 5 The Williams case is strikingly similar to this one. In that case, the plaintiff filed a claim in the Claims Court on behalf of herself, her predecessors, and members of the Florida Chocktaw tribe seeking compensation from the government for various asserted injuries suffered by the tribe. The court held that, because Ms. Williams “is a non- Case: 26-1509 Document: 19 Page: 6 Filed: 11/10/2026 6 MCCASTER v. US Mr. McCaster therefore may not seek relief on behalf of The Mathias El Tribe. The court was also correct in holding that the Indian Tucker Act by its terms provides that only an Indian tribe, band, or other identifiable group may seek relief under the Act, and that Mr. McCaster therefore could not bring an action under section 1505 in his personal capacity. See Fields v. United States, 423 F.2d 380, 383 (Ct. Cl. 1970) (“[S]ince the instant case is one brought by individual Indians and not a tribe, band, or identifiable group of Indians, we feel that defendant is correct in asserting that section 1505 does not apply to the present case.”). 6 III We have considered Mr. McCaster’s remaining arguments but find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the Claims Court’s February 19, 2026, order. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs. lawyer proceeding pro se, she cannot represent the Florida Choctaws or anyone who is not an immediate family mem- ber.” Williams, 482 F. App’x at 582 (citing Claims Court Rule 83.1(a)(3)). 6 Although an individual may bring an action in his personal capacity under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a), Mr. McCaster contends that he is not proceeding in his personal capacity, see ECF No. 12 at 2, and he has not argued that his complaint should be read as invoking section 1491.