NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2006-5146

PIPER LAKAY ELLIS SNOWTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

Piper Lakay Ellis Snowton , of Highland, California, pro se.

Thomas D. Dinackus , Attorney, Commercial Litigat ion Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Peter D, Keisler , Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen , Director, and Franklin E. White, Jr. , Assistant Director. Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims Senior Judge James F. MerowNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2006-5146 PIPER LAKAY ELLIS SNOWTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________ DECIDED: February 8, 2007

__________________________

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge , RADER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM.

DECISION Piper Lakay Ellis Snowton appeals the final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing for lack of jurisd iction her tort claims and her claims of
discrimination, violations of due process and equ al protection rights, and violations of the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act. Snowton v. United States , No. 06- 533C (Fed. Cl. Sept. 13, 2006) (“ Order ”). We affirm

.DISCUSSION

I.

Ms. Snowton sued the United States in the Court of Feder al Claims, alle ging that

the “United States of America Federal Court systems,” s pecifically the Court of Appeals

for the Tenth Circuit and the Un ited States District Court fo r the Central District of California, inflicted pain, suffering, and stre ss on her by “plastering the plaintiff[’s]

confidential case all over the inter net without plaintiff[’s] permission.” Order , slip op. at

1. Ms. Snowton asserts these claims as torts and as claims under the Due Process and Equal Prot ection Clauses of the Fifth and F ourteenth Amendmen ts to the Constitution, the Privacy Act, and the Freedom of Information Act. Id. at 2. Ms. Snowton s eeks $350

million in d a mages. Id. at 1

. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Ms. Snowton’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 2. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

I I

. We review de nov o the grant of a moti on t o dismiss f o r lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Brown v. United States , 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997). On appeal, Ms. Snowton challenges the dis m issal by t he Court of Federal Claims of her claims by arguing gener ally that t he Court of Federal Cla ims “has exclus iv e jurisdiction over claim s for money damages agai nst the United St ates ,” Appellant’s Br. ¶ 6, and by citing to several criminal statutes, Id. ¶ 2.

2006-5146 2We see no error in the dec ision of the Cour t of Federa l Claims in this case. As the court correctly observed, none of Ms. Snowto n’s claims fall withi n the c ourt’s limited jurisdiction.

Ms. Snowton’s broad content ion that the Court of Fede ral Claims “has e x clu s iv e jurisdiction over claims for money damages a gainst the United States” is inc o rrect. The Court of Federal Claims has not been provided with jurisdiction ov er tort claims. See L’Enfant Plaza Proper ties , Inc. v. United St ates , 227 Ct. Cl. 1, 11 (1981). The Tucker Act is spec ifically limit ed to “c ases not sounding in tort.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Additionally , the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over suits based upon

criminal statutes. See Joshua v. United States , 17 F.3d 378, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Ms. Snowton’s remaining c l aims, relating to violations of due process and e qua l protection and violations of the Privacy Ac t and the Freedom of Information Act, fail

because “the Tucker Act itself does not create a subst a ntive caus e of action; in order to come within the juris d ictional reach and the waiver of the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a s eparate source of substantive law that creates the right of money damages” against the United St ates. Fisher v. United States , 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The Due Proc ess and Equal Protection clau ses do n o t create such a right and therefore claimed v i ol ations of these clauses do no t fa ll within the jurisdiction

of the Court of Federal Claims. See LeBlanc v. Unit ed States , 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Lik e wise, the Privacy and the Freedom of Information Act do not create such a right. See Instrument Sys. Corp. v. United States , 212 Ct. Cl. 99, 104 (1976).

2006-5146 3For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing Ms. Snowton’s appeal for lack of juri sdiction is affirmed.

2006-5146 4