Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05088/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05088-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ni-Shon Latia Lawton
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

NI-SHON LATIA LAWTON, AKA NI-SHON LATIA 

BEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5088

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00079-TCW, Judge Thomas C. 

Wheeler. 

______________________ 

Decided: November 6, 2015

______________________ 

 NI-SHON LATIA LAWTON, Pennsauken, NJ, pro se.

 TANYA KOENIG, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

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

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, DONALD E. KINNER, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-5088 Document: 24-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/06/2015
2 LAWTON v. US

Before MOORE, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Ms. Ni-Shon Latia Lawton appeals from an order of 

the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing her

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because 

the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed the complaint, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

On January 26, 2015, Ms. Lawton filed the present 

suit in the Court of Federal Claims against the United 

States, asserting various violations of her constitutional 

rights, as well as violations of criminal and civil law. Her 

complaint requested damages in the amount of $3,000,000 

and “[a]n order of restraint on the further violation of 

rights” of her and her family. Ms. Lawton alleges that 

individuals associated with the Department of Health and 

Human Services, New Jersey state agencies, state officials, and private individuals have engaged in various 

illegal activities, including stalking, forging documents, 

harassment, and fraudulently evicting her from her home. 

These actions are allegedly in retaliation for a former 

lawsuit brought by Ms. Lawton involving the custody of 

her son. The Court of Federal Claims sua sponte dismissed Ms. Lawton’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. 

Ms. Lawton appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). 

DISCUSSION

We review de novo a decision by the Court of Federal 

Claims to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. M. Maropakis 

Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323, 1327 

(Fed. Cir. 2010). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of 

the evidence. Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 

846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

Case: 15-5088 Document: 24-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/06/2015
LAWTON v. US 3

We find that the Court of Federal Claims properly 

dismissed Ms. Lawton’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. 

The Tucker Act limits the jurisdiction of the Court of 

Federal Claims to “claim[s] 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. The United 

States is the only proper defendant before the Court of 

Federal Claims. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 

584, 588 (1941) (suits against parties other than the 

United States lie outside the jurisdiction of the Claims 

Court). Moreover, “in 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). 

Although Ms. Lawton’s caption identifies the United 

States as the defendant in the suit, her factual allegations

are directed at New Jersey state agencies, state officials, 

and private individuals. On appeal, Ms. Lawton argues 

that because New Jersey “is territory claimed by the 

U.S.,” acts by New Jersey officials may be attributed to 

the United States. Appellant’s Br. 2. The Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over states, state officials, and 

state agencies. Sherwood, 312 U.S. at 588. 

Furthermore, as noted by the Court of Federal 

Claims, Ms. Lawton did not assert any claims deriving

from money-mandating sources of law not sounding in 

tort. The Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over 

Ms. Lawton’s allegations of civil rights violations, claims 

sounding in tort, and violations of the federal criminal 

code. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491; Joshua v. United States, 17 

F.3d 378, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As such, the Court of 

Federal Claims properly determined that it did not have 

jurisdiction. 

Case: 15-5088 Document: 24-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/06/2015
4 LAWTON v. US

CONCLUSION

Because the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 15-5088 Document: 24-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/06/2015