N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

2022

- 1786 J. WICKRAMARATNA, aka Jac Wright, TEXEL ENGINEERING LTD., aka T Ltd ., Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2022

- 1786

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:21

- cv

- 02342

- MHS, Judge Matthew H. Solomson.

______________________
ON MOTION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

J. Wickramaratna filed a complaint at the United States Court of Federal Claims for $10 billion

, primarily alleging that a host of federal officials and employees, including members of Congress and employees of the Department s of State, Defense, and Justice, are involved in a conspiracy to obstruct her alleged relationship with President Trump. She a sserted tort violations, civil rights Case: 22-1786 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 12/08/2022WICKRAMARATNA v. US 2

violations, and a bre ach of contract

, as well as a laundry list of criminal acts

. * The Court of Federal Claims dismissed her breach

- of

- contract claim because Ms. Wickramaratna failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief and dismissed Ms. Wickramaratna’s remaining claims for lack of jurisdiction or as frivolous. She appeals and now move s for leave to proceed in forma pauperis . She has also file d her opening brief, ECF No s . 12 and 14

. Because the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Wickramarat na’s complaint was so “clearly correct” and “ no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists

, ” we summarily affirm. Joshua v. United States , 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, limits jurisdiction of th e Court of Federal Claims to claims for money damages against the United States in cases “not sounding in tort,” § 1491(a)(1). It does not give the court jurisdiction over Ms. Wickramaratna’s claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which are under the juri sdiction of district courts, or over her alleged violations of the First Amendment or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment

. LeBlanc v. United States , 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995); United States v. Connolly , 716 F.2d 882, 886

– 87 (Fed. Cir. 1 983).

The Court of Federal Claims properly found that the only conceivable basis for its jurisdiction was the breach

of

- contract claim but dismissed that claim on the ground that Ms. Wickramaratna failed to allege plausible facts that would show she had a contract with the federal government or had bid rejected on a proposed government contract that could give rise to the court’s jurisdiction under

* No counsel has appeared on behalf of Texel Engineering. Ms. Wickramaratna indicates that Texel Engineering is a United Kingdom entity that may be akin to a sole proprietorship. See, e.g., ECF No. 12 at 12. Case: 22-1786 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 12/08/2022WICKRAMARATNA v. US 3

28 U.S.C. § 1491(b) . The court was right to do so. T he claim was premised on the frivolous allegations that formed the basis of her other alleged violations

. Compl. at 2. Allegations that fall into those categories are insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief

. See Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 327

– 28 (1989).
Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.
(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

December 8 , 2022 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 22-1786 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 12/08/2022