Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05107/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05107-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 528
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DONNA MARIE CONNER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5107

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00171-LB, Judge Lawrence J. 

Block.

______________________ 

Decided: January 12, 2016

______________________ 

DONNA MARIE CONNER, Manchester, NH, pro se.

RENEE GERBER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., FRANKLIN 

E. WHITE, JR. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-5107 Document: 21-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/12/2016
 2 CONNER v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Donna Marie Conner (Ms. Conner) appeals from a 

judgment by the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) 

dismissing her complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from a complaint that Ms. Conner 

filed in the Claims Court against the New Hampshire 

Attorney General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

the acting chief of the Department of Justice Civil Rights 

Division, the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, the 

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, the President 

of the United States, the Police Chief of Manchester, New 

Hampshire, and a Justice serving on the District Division 

of the New Hampshire Ninth Circuit Court in Manchester. Among her many allegations, Ms. Conner alleges 

that these parties have used her eye drops and the air in 

her apartment to poison her, causing intentional bodily 

harm. She also raises several grievances relating to the 

handling of her prior litigations in New Hampshire state 

court. Based on these contentions she alleges violations of 

the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, 

Tenth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the 

United States Constitution. She asserted that the Claims 

Court had subject matter jurisdiction over her claims 

under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491. In addition, she 

asserts causes of action under the Copyright Act, the

Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act, 

the Privacy Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The Claims Court characterized Ms. Conner’s complaint as alleging that “various state officials broke into 

her apartment, stole documents and attempted to poison 

her by tampering with her eye drops.” Conner v. United 

States, No. 15-171 C, slip op. at 1 (Fed. Cl. June 5, 2015). 

The Claims Court also noted Ms. Conner’s allegations 

involving the President “conspir[ing] with the Supreme 

Case: 15-5107 Document: 21-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/12/2016
CONNER v. US 3

Court and Canadian immigration officials to prevent her 

from obtaining asylum in Canada.” Id. Finally, the 

Claims Court noted Ms. Conner’s references to numerous 

Amendments of the United States Constitution. The 

Claims Court concluded, however, that even if these 

allegations were true, the court lacked jurisdiction to 

resolve her claims and dismissed the action. 

On appeal, Ms. Conner argues that the Claims 

Court’s dismissal was erroneous. She also asserts that 

the Claims Court failed to appreciate that she is seeking 

compensation for the Department of Justice’s failure to 

investigate crimes in which she was the victim. 

DISCUSSION

Whether the Claims Court properly dismissed 

Ms. Conner’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. Folden v. 

United States, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

When determining whether the Claims Court possessed 

subject-matter jurisdiction, “the allegations in the complaint are taken as true and jurisdiction is decided on the 

face of the pleadings.” Shearin v. United States, 992 F.2d 

1195, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Ms. Conner’s claims were based on the Tucker Act, 

which provides:

The United States Court of Federal Claims shall 

have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any 

claim against the United States founded either 

upon the Constitution or any Act of Congress or 

any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States or for liquidated or unliquidated 

damages in cases not sounding in tort.

28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). There are two key limitations on 

actions arising under the Tucker Act that prevent the 

Claims Court from exercising jurisdiction. 

Case: 15-5107 Document: 21-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/12/2016
 4 CONNER v. US

Under the Tucker Act, “if the relief sought is against 

others than the United States the suit as to them must be 

ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court.” United 

States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941). For this 

reason, the Claims Court properly dismissed Ms. Conner’s 

claims as they relate to the Canadian government officials 

and the employees of the state of New Hampshire or the 

city of Manchester, New Hampshire.

Furthermore, Tucker Act jurisdiction is limited to 

claims against the United States based on sources of law 

that mandate monetary relief. United States v. Navajo 

Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 289–90 (2009). “Not every claim 

invoking the Constitution, a federal statute, or a regulation is cognizable under the Tucker Act. . . . [T]he claimant must demonstrate that the source of substantive law 

he relies upon ‘can fairly be interpreted as mandating 

compensation by the Federal Government for the damage 

sustained.’” United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216–

17 (1983) (quoting United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 

400 (1976)). 

After reviewing the allegations in Ms. Conner’s complaint, we conclude that she has not demonstrated that 

any of the claims she asserts conceivably derives from any 

“contractual relationship, constitutional provision, statute, or regulation, the violation of which supports a claim 

for damages against the United States.” Khan v. United 

States, 201 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quotation 

marks omitted); see also United States v. Connolly, 716 

F.2d 882, 887 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (First Amendment); Dupre 

v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 706 (1981) (Fourth Amendment); LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. 

Cir. 1995) (Fifth Amendment (Due Process) and Fourteenth Amendment); Ogden v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 

44, 47 (2004) (Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments); Harris v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 180, 190 

(2014) (Seventh Amendment); Carter v. United States, 228 

Ct. Cl. 898, 900 (1981) (Thirteenth Amendment). For 

Case: 15-5107 Document: 21-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/12/2016
CONNER v. US 5

example, as we explained in Connolly, the First Amendment “merely forbids Congress from enacting certain 

types of laws; it does not provide persons aggrieved by 

governmental action with an action for damages in the 

absence of some other jurisdictional basis.” 716 F.2d at

887. 

We also agree with the Claims Court that it lacks jurisdiction over Privacy Act claims, Freedom of Information Act claims, claims under the Federal Tort Claims 

Act, and § 1983 claims because the federal district courts 

possess exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 552a(g)(1) (Privacy Act); 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) (Freedom of Information Act); 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (Federal 

Tort Claims Act); 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a) (civil rights claims 

and claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). In addition, 

Ms. Conner’s Copyright Act claim is not within the jurisdiction of the Claims Court because she has not alleged 

copyright infringement by the government. Ms. Conner’s 

remaining claims sound in tort, which are expressly 

excluded from the Claims Court’s jurisdiction in the 

Tucker Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the 

Claims Court’s dismissal of Ms. Conner’s complaint for 

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.1

AFFIRMED

No Costs.

1 We have also considered Ms. Conner’s Motion for 

Sanctions and find it without merit. The motion is therefore denied.

 

Case: 15-5107 Document: 21-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/12/2016