Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01600/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01600-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States
Appellee
Inez Velez
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

INEZ VELEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1600

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-01230-EGB, Judge Eric G. Bruggink.

______________________ 

Decided: June 10, 2016

______________________ 

INEZ VELEZ, Bronx, NY, pro se.

ERIC JOHN SINGLEY, 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.,

SCOTT D. AUSTIN. 

______________________ 

Case: 16-1600 Document: 13-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/10/2016
2 VELEZ v. US

Before NEWMAN, SCHALL, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION

Inez Velez appeals the order and judgment of the 

United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing her 

complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Inez Velez v. United 

States, No. 15-1230C, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 8, 2016). 

We affirm. 

DISCUSSION

I.

 Ms. Velez filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims on 

October 21, 2015. In her complaint, she sought either 

$280 million or $820 billion in damages for injuries suffered throughout her life as a result of alleged negligent 

medical care provided to her while she was in hospitals 

and mental care facilities in New York and Puerto Rico. 

She also alleged that “the state” failed to protect her while 

she was in its custody and that “the state” had covered up 

a sexual assault she experienced in 1953. On January 8, 

2016, the Court of Federal Claims issued an order stating 

that it lacked jurisdiction and directing the clerk of the 

court to dismiss Ms. Velez’s complaint. Id. The court 

explained that, because the complaint asserted claims 

sounding in tort, it did not have jurisdiction over the suit. 

Id. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

II.

The Court of Federal Claims derives its jurisdiction 

(which is the power to hear a case) from the Tucker Act. 

The Tucker Act provides as follows:

The United States Court of Federal Claims shall 

have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any 

claim against the United States founded either 

Case: 16-1600 Document: 13-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/10/2016
VELEZ v. US 3

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) (emphasis added). 

The plain language of the Tucker Act excludes claims 

sounding in tort from the jurisdiction of the Court of 

Federal Claims. Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United 

States, 521 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008). We have 

reviewed Ms. Velez’s complaint and have considered the 

arguments she makes on appeal. It is clear that all the 

claims she makes sound in tort. They are thus outside 

the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. The court, 

therefore, did not err in ordering the dismissal of her 

complaint.

For the foregoing reasons, the order and judgment of 

the Court of Federal Claims dismissing Ms. Velez’s complaint are affirmed.

AFFIRMED

No costs.

Case: 16-1600 Document: 13-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/10/2016