Prescott
Prescott v. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Thomas Prescott appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and on claim preclusion grounds. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Blue v. Widnall, 162 F.3d 541, 544 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.
Prescott has failed his burden to establish the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir.1986). The Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613 , provides exclusive remedies in the Federal Circuit for federal contractors seeking additional compensation. 41 U.S.C. § 605 (CDA applies to “all claims by a contractor against the government relating to a contract”); Mendenhall v. Kusicko, 857 F.2d 1378,1379 (9th Cir.1988) (the CDA confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Court of Claims). All of Prescott’s claims are directly related to his contract with the Forest Service.
Prescott may not avoid the jurisdictional bar of the CDA merely by alleging his contract dispute in the language of tort. See Mendenhall, 857 F.2d at 1378-79 ; cf. Megapulse, Inc. v. Lewis, 672 F.2d 959, 967 (D.C.Cir.1982). Prescott’s recasting of his contractual…