Full Opinion

Case: 26-1948 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 11/10/2026 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ JORDAN ZAHLER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2026-1948 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:26-cv-00614-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink. ______________________ Decided: November 10, 2026 ______________________ JORDAN ZAHLER, Wind Gap, PA, pro se. DANIEL FALKNOR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by DEBORAH ANN BYNUM, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE. ______________________ Before DYK, SCHALL, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. Case: 26-1948 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 11/10/2026 2 ZAHLER v. US PER CURIAM. Mr. Jordan Zahler filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) seeking damages from the United States on the theory that, in an earlier civil action, a dis- trict court was required to award him default judgment. The Claims Court dismissed his complaint for lack of sub- ject-matter jurisdiction. The Claims Court concluded that Mr. Zahler failed to identify a money-mandating source of law entitling him to the damages sought, a requirement of its jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, and dismissed the complaint. Mr. Zahler appeals. We affirm. BACKGROUND Mr. Zahler sued several private entities in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking $690,226,256 in damages. The defendants in that case filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer, thus extend- ing the time for answering the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). Alleging that the defendants’ answer was overdue, Mr. Zahler moved for entry of default. The dis- trict court did not enter default and instead granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss each of Mr. Zahler’s claims. Mr. Zahler did not appeal the district court’s dismissal. Mr. Zahler then filed a complaint at the Claims Court, seeking the $690,226,256 from the government on the the- ory that the district court clerk failed to enter default as allegedly required under Federal Rule of Civil Proce- dure 55(a). Mr. Zahler alleged that the Claims Court had jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), and pleaded that his claim was founded upon a violation of the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). Before the government entered a responsive pleading, the Claims Court entered an order dismissing the com- plaint under Claims Court Rule 12(h)(3) for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction. Case: 26-1948 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 11/10/2026 ZAHLER v. US 3 Mr. Zahler timely appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). DISCUSSION We review de novo the Claims Court’s determination of its jurisdiction. Estes Express Lines v. United States, 739 F.3d 689, 692 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Claims Court concluded that Mr. Zahler’s claim was not based on a money-mandating source of law, depriv- ing it of jurisdiction. The Claims Court has Tucker Act ju- risdiction only over claims deriving from a money- mandating source of law. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991, 995–96 (Fed. Cir. 2006). A source of law is money mandating if it “can fairly be inter- preted as mandating compensation by the Federal Govern- ment for the damages sustained.” United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216–17 (1983) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Mr. Zahler argues that the money-mandating require- ment applies only to claims based on the Constitution, Acts of Congress, or administrative regulations, and somehow does not apply to his claims. Mr. Zahler alternatively ar- gues that his claims are based on the Rules Enabling Act and that the Act is money-mandating. Mr. Zahler is incor- rect. The Claims Court correctly determined that Mr. Zah- ler was required to establish a money-mandating provision of law and that the Rules Enabling Act is not a money-man- dating source of law that could sustain its Tucker Act ju- risdiction. Alternatively, we conclude that the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction because Mr. Zahler’s claim essentially seeks review of a district court decision. Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Case: 26-1948 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 11/10/2026 4 ZAHLER v. US CONCLUSION We have considered Mr. Zahler’s other arguments and find them unpersuasive. We affirm the Claims Court’s dis- missal of the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdic- tion. AFFIRMED