LJUTIC v. US , No. 14-5109 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-5109 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 08/05/2014 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ SANJA LJUTIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. ______________________ 2014-5109 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:14-cv-00182-EJD, Judge Edward J. Damich. ______________________ ON MOTION ______________________ PER CURIAM. ORDER Sanja Ljutic, a resident of Bosnia and Herzegovina, brought this complaint seeking action against the President of the United States. Ljutic raised various grievances and asked for impeachment and the formation of a special crises government, as well as $14,900,000 in lost salary. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The government thinks Case: 14-5109 Document: 5 2 Page: 2 LJUTIC Filed: 08/05/2014 v. US that decision is clearly correct as a matter of law, and so do we. The Tucker Act limits the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims to claims for money damages against the United States based on sources of substantive law that can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government. United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009). The Court of Federal Claims correctly pointed out in its dismissal order that Ljutic s complaint does not point to any money-mandating provision that could give the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction or relate in any manner to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the decision to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction was clearly correct, we agree with the government s motion that summary affirmance is appropriate. See Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Summary affirmance of a case is appropriate, inter alia, when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists. ). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT /s/ Daniel E. O Toole Daniel E. O Toole Clerk of Court s19
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
