Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01791/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01791-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lisa Ann Deweese
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

LISA ANN DEWEESE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2024-1791

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:24-cv-00014-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank 

Horn.

______________________

Decided: December 6, 2024

______________________

LISA ANN DEWEESE, Albuquerque, NM, pro se. 

 NELSON KUAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented 

by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, CORINNE 

ANNE NIOSI. 

 ______________________

Before PROST, BRYSON, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

Case: 24-1791 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 12/06/2024
2 DEWEESE v. US

PER CURIAM.

Pro se Appellant Lisa Ann Deweese appeals a 

judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims

dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

This matter originates from child custody proceedings 

in the State of New Mexico concerning allegations that Ms. 

Deweese abused or neglected her child. See, e.g.,

SAppx2–4.

1 On December 9, 2013, a New Mexico children’s 

court division entered a stipulated judgment against Ms. 

Deweese, which provided that the State of New Mexico 

Children, Youth and Families Department (“CYFD”) would 

retain custody of Ms. Deweese’s child and implement a 

treatment plan for Ms. Deweese. Appx24–28.2 

On January 2, 2024, Ms. Deweese filed a complaint 

against the federal government in the United States Court 

of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”), alleging breach of 

multiple contracts, violation of due process rights, and 

tortious acts based on facts relating to the New Mexico 

child custody proceedings. SAppx2. The alleged contracts 

undergirding Ms. Deweese’s breach of contract claims are

a signed mediation agreement and the treatment plan 

provided by the New Mexico CYFD. SAppx3.

1 As used herein, “SAppx” refers to the supplemental 

appendix accompanying Appellee’s Corrected Informal 

Response Brief, which is docketed at Case No. 24-1794, 

Doc. 19.

2 As used herein, “Appx” refers to the appendix 

accompanying Appellant’s Informal Brief, which is 

docketed at Case No. 24-1791, Doc. 14, and the cited pages 

correspond to the page numbering as docketed at Doc. 14. 

Case: 24-1791 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 12/06/2024
DEWEESE v. US 3

On January 25, 2024, the government moved to 

dismiss Ms. Deweese’s complaint for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. SAppx6. The government argued lack of 

jurisdiction because the alleged contracts are neither 

money-mandating nor contracts with the federal

government, and the due process and tort claims asserted 

by Ms. Deweese are not within the jurisdiction of the 

Claims Court. SAppx6. The Claims Court agreed with the 

government and dismissed the action without prejudice for 

lack of jurisdiction. SAppx19.

Ms. Deweese timely appealed the dismissal. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

We review the Claims Court’s dismissal for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Waltner v. United 

States, 679 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Although “pro 

se pleadings are to be liberally construed,” Durr v. 

Nicholson, 400 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation 

omitted), pro se plaintiffs must still establish the Claims 

Court’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence,

Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 

2002).

3

The Claims Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 

Under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, the Claims Court

has jurisdiction over actions founded upon “any express or 

implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated 

or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” Id.

§ 1491(a)(1). The Tucker Act does not create a substantive 

cause of action. Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 

3 We summarize Ms. Deweese’s informal claims 

liberally construing Ms. Deweese’s amended complaint. 

SAppx2–19. Accordingly, the referenced “complaint” refers 

to Ms. Deweese’s amended complaint, as filed on 

January 2, 2024. SAppx2.

Case: 24-1791 Document: 43 Page: 3 Filed: 12/06/2024
4 DEWEESE v. US

1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc in relevant part). Rather, 

plaintiffs who pursue claims under the Tucker Act must 

also “identify a separate source of substantive law that 

creates the right to money damages.” Id.

This court has identified three types of monetary 

claims that fall within the Claims Court’s jurisdiction: (1) 

claims alleging a contract between the plaintiff and the 

government, (2) claims where the plaintiff has paid money 

to the government and seeks a full or partial refund of that 

money, and (3) claims where the plaintiff has not paid any 

money but asserts he is nevertheless entitled to a payment 

from the treasury. Ontario Power Generation, Inc. v. 

United States, 369 F.3d 1298, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the Claims 

Court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction. First, 

Ms. Deweese failed to plead the existence of a valid 

contract between her and the federal government. The 

contracts she does allege are agreements between Ms. 

Deweese and the State of New Mexico. Appx24–27. 

Despite Ms. Deweese’s assertion to the contrary, the State 

of New Mexico is not the federal government. These 

agreements therefore do not constitute an express or 

implied contract with the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 

1491(a)(1) (noting the express or implied contract must be 

“with the United States”); see also Moore v. Pub. Defs. Off., 

76 Fed. Cl. 617, 620 (2007) (“When a plaintiff’s complaint 

names private parties, or local, county, or state agencies, 

rather than federal agencies, this court has no jurisdiction 

to hear those allegations.”). Accordingly, the Claims Court

does not have jurisdiction over Ms. Deweese’s breach of 

contract claims.

Second, Ms. Deweese’s due process and tort claims also 

fail to establish the Claims Court’s jurisdiction. “The law is 

well settled that the Due Process clauses of both the Fifth 

and Fourteenth Amendments do not mandate the payment 

of money and thus do not provide a cause of action under 

Case: 24-1791 Document: 43 Page: 4 Filed: 12/06/2024
DEWEESE v. US 5

the Tucker Act.” Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114, 

1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). It is also well 

established that the Claims Court does not have 

jurisdiction over tort claims. Trafny v. United States, 503 

F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Tucker Act expressly 

limits the Claims Court’s jurisdiction to “cases not 

sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (emphasis added). 

Accordingly, the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over Ms. 

Deweese’s due process and tort claims.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Ms. Deweese’s remaining 

arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing 

reasons, we affirm the Claims Court’s dismissal of Ms. 

Deweese’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 24-1791 Document: 43 Page: 5 Filed: 12/06/2024