Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05134/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05134-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Yvonne Murphy Hickman
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

YVONNE MURPHY HICKMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5134

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00066-EDK, Judge Elaine Kaplan.

______________________ 

Decided: November 5, 2015

______________________ 

YVONNE MURPHY HICKMAN, Glen Burnie, MD, pro se.

MATTHEW PAUL ROCHE, 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., REGINALD T. BLADES, JR. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-5134 Document: 22-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/05/2015
2 HICKMAN v. UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM. 

Appellant Yvonne Hickman appeals the final judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims 

(“Claims Court”) dismissing her suit for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. See Hickman v. United States, 122 

Fed. Cl. 645 (2015). For the reasons set forth below, this 

court affirms.

BACKGROUND

Ms. Hickman married Nathaniel Hickman on September 10, 2007 in Brunswick, Georgia. Appellee’s App. 

26. Mr. Hickman receives disability benefits from the 

United States Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) for 

his service-connected disability resulting from his service 

during the conflict in Vietnam. Id. at 27–28. 

In December 2009, the Hickmans separated. Id. at 

29. Shortly after the separation, Ms. Hickman filed a 

claim for marital apportionment of Mr. Hickman’s benefits. Id. at 11. In April 2010, the VA Regional Office 

awarded Ms. Hickman a marital apportionment of $150 

per month. Id. at 15. 

In August 2010, Mr. Hickman filed for divorce in the 

Superior Court of Glynn County, Georgia. Id. at 29–33. 

A final divorce decree was entered on September 13, 2011. 

Id. at 36, 38. Ms. Hickman appealed the decree to the 

Supreme Court of Georgia, which dismissed the appeal on 

September 10, 2012 for failure to follow discretionary 

appeal procedures. Id. at 40. 

Prior to the issuance of the divorce decree, Ms. Hickman filed a claim with the VA for an increased apportionment of Mr. Hickman’s benefits. Id. at 16. The VA 

did not award Ms. Hickman an increase in the marital 

apportionment; rather, in light of the divorce decree, the 

VA terminated Ms. Hickman’s marital apportionment of 

Mr. Hickman’s benefits. Id. at 19. 

Case: 15-5134 Document: 22-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/05/2015
HICKMAN v. UNITED STATES 3

On October 15, 2012, the VA sent Ms. Hickman a letter informing her of the right to dispute the termination 

of her marital apportionment. Id. After Ms. Hickman’s 

appeal to the VA Regional Office was denied, id. at 22, 

she appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“BVA”). 

Id. at 23. However, the record does not reflect the disposition of this appeal. See id. at 8–42; see also Hickman,

122 Fed. Cl. at 648. 

On January 23, 2015, Ms. Hickman filed a Complaint 

pro se in the Claims Court against the United States. 

Appellee’s App. 8. Ms. Hickman alleged the VA’s termination of the marital apportionment violated her due 

process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth 

Amendment of the Constitution. Id. at 8–9. Ms. Hickman also alleged her divorce was the result of fraud and 

the VA conspired against her when it terminated her 

marital apportionment in light of the divorce decree. Id.

at 9–10. In particular, she contended the VA engaged in 

“fraud in misrepresentation and concealment” in continuing to rely on the allegedly fraudulent divorce decree to 

deny her VA benefits. Id. at 9. As a result of her alleged 

injuries, Ms. Hickman claimed entitlement to 

$100,000,000 in damages pursuant to the Federal Tort 

Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671–80, as well as 

damages for interfering with her civil rights pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(1)–(4) and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Appellee’s App. 8, 10. 

On August 4, 2015, the Claims Court dismissed the

Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United 

States Court of Federal Claims for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Hickman, 122 Fed. Cl. at 651. Ms. Hickman 

timely appealed. This court possesses jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) (2012).

Case: 15-5134 Document: 22-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/05/2015
4 HICKMAN v. UNITED STATES

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review and Legal Framework

“This court reviews de novo the Court of Federal 

Claims decision to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.” 

Waltner v. United States, 679 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 

2012) (citation omitted). “The Court of Federal Claims is 

a court of limited jurisdiction.” Brown v. United States, 

105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). 

The Tucker Act confers jurisdiction upon the Claims 

Court 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). However, the Tucker Act is “only a jurisdictional statute; it does not create any substantive right 

enforceable against the United States for money damages.” United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). 

“[I]n order to come within the jurisdictional reach and the 

waiver of the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a 

separate source of substantive law that creates the right 

to money damages.” Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 

1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). 

II. Ms. Hickman Has Not Asserted a Substantive Law 

Establishing Jurisdiction Under the Tucker Act

On appeal, Ms. Hickman asserts the Claims Court 

“refused evidence that the VA terminated [her] spousal 

support benefits on account of fraud upon the state court.” 

Appellant’s Br. 1. Ms. Hickman also asserts “[t]he court 

refused evidence that [she] ha[s] never been divorced.” Id. 

However, the record does not reflect that the Claims 

Court refused to consider evidence submitted by Ms. 

Hickman. Rather, the court expressly stated the facts 

recounted in the “background” section of its opinion “are 

based on the allegations in the [C]omplaint and the 

Case: 15-5134 Document: 22-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/05/2015
HICKMAN v. UNITED STATES 5

exhibits attached to the [C]omplaint, which are all accepted as true for purposes of deciding the government’s 

motion to dismiss.” Hickman, 122 Fed. Cl. at 647 n.2. 

Based upon these facts, the Claims Court properly determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear Ms. 

Hickman’s claim challenging the validity of her divorce 

decree issued by the State of Georgia. Hickman, 122 Fed. 

Cl. at 650. Claims against the State of Georgia do not fall 

within the Tucker Act’s grant of jurisdiction which extends to “any claim against the United States founded 

either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or 

any regulation of an executive department . . . .” 28 

U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Rather, the United States Supreme 

Court is the only federal court that may review, under 

limited circumstances, a final judgment from a Georgia 

state court. See id. § 1257(a). 

Ms. Hickman also argues that she “filed a benefits 

claim” and the Claims Court applied “tort law in fraud,” 

thus allegedly refusing to hear her benefits claim. Appellant’s Br. 1. Despite this argument, the record demonstrates that the Claims Court properly determined it 

lacked jurisdiction to review denials of veterans’ benefits 

claims, including Ms. Hickman’s marital apportionment 

claim. Hickman, 122 Fed. Cl. at 650. Challenging the 

denial of veterans’ benefit claims must proceed first to the 

BVA, then to the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims, and finally to this court. See 38 U.S.C. 

§§ 511(a) (decisions of the Secretary are final), 7104(a)

(Secretary decisions are only appealable to the BVA), 

7252(a) (Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has exclusive jurisdiction to review BVA decisions), 7292(c) (this 

court has exclusive jurisdiction to review Court of Appeals 

for Veterans Claims decisions). Ms. Hickman deviated 

from this congressionally mandated process for appellate 

review of VA benefit claims. 

Case: 15-5134 Document: 22-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/05/2015
6 HICKMAN v. UNITED STATES

Additionally, the Claims Court did not apply “tort law 

in fraud” as alleged by Ms. Hickman. Rather, the court 

explained the Tucker Act expressly limits its jurisdiction 

“to claims for damages ‘not sounding in tort.’” Hickman, 

122 Fed. Cl. at 651 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)). 

Because Ms. Hickman’s Complaint alleged injuries recognized as torts—i.e., misrepresentation, fraud, and conspiracy—the court lacked the subject matter jurisdiction 

to hear her claims. Id. (citing Jumah v. United States, 90 

Fed. Cl. 603, 607–08 (2009), aff’d, 385 F. App’x 987 (Fed. 

Cir. 2010) (unpublished); Phang v. United States, 87 Fed. 

Cl. 321, 325 (2009), aff’d sub nom. Phu Mang Phang v. 

United States, 388 F. App’x 961 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished); Berdick v. United States, 612 F.2d 533, 536 

(Ct. Cl. 1979)). 

Finally, Ms. Hickman argues the Claims Court “failed 

to consider evidence that [the VA] violated the 14th 

Amendment.” Appellant’s Br. 1. However, as explained 

by the Claims Court, “‘alleged violations of . . . rights 

under the Due Process Clause[] of the . . . Fourteenth 

Amendment[], and the Equal Protection Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment’ are not ‘a sufficient basis for 

jurisdiction [under the Tucker Act] because they do not 

mandate payment of money by the Government.’” Hickman, 122 Fed. Cl. at 651 (brackets omitted) (quoting 

LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 

1995)). Thus, the Claims Court properly determined it 

lacked jurisdiction to hear Ms. Hickman’s claims of civil 

rights violations because they are not money mandating. 

See id.; see also Testan, 424 U.S. at 398. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the final judgment 

dismissing Ms. Hickman’s case for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction is 

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-5134 Document: 22-2 Page: 6 Filed: 11/05/2015
HICKMAN v. UNITED STATES 7

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.

Case: 15-5134 Document: 22-2 Page: 7 Filed: 11/05/2015