NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

______________________

PER CURIAM.

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 Departments of State, Defense, and Justice, are involved in a 

conspiracy to obstruct her alleged relationship with President Trump. She asserted tort violations, civil rights 

Case: 22-1786 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 12/08/2022
2 WICKRAMARATNA v. US

violations, and a breach 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 moves for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis. She has also filed her opening brief, ECF 

Nos. 12 and 14. 

Because the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Wickramaratna’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 the 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 jurisdiction 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. 1983). 

The Court of Federal Claims properly found that the 

only conceivable basis for its jurisdiction was the breachof-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: 12/08/2022
WICKRAMARATNA v. US 3

28 U.S.C. § 1491(b). The court was right to do so. The 

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,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(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

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

 

 

Case: 22-1786 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 12/08/2022