NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MICHELE GRAY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2023-1955

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:23-cv-00631-CNL, Judge Carolyn N. Lerner.

______________________ 

Decided: April 5, 2024

______________________ 

MICHELE GRAY, Rensselaer, NY, pro se.

 BRENDAN DAVID JORDAN, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE,

PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 23-1955 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 04/05/2024
2 GRAY v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Michele R. Gray has appealed from the United States 

Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of her complaint for lack 

of subject-matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons, 

we affirm.

Ms. Gray filed a complaint against the federal government in the Court of Federal Claims asserting subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1491(a)(1). S.A. 4–5.1 The complaint alleged, citing 11 

U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), (4), that Ms. Gray’s Summerville, South 

Carolina property was taken without good cause pursuant 

to bankruptcy proceedings. S.A. 7. Ms. Gray listed the 

“monetary damages and other relief” sought as “(1) equitable relief payment; 26 CFR § 1.6015-4 and (2) Administrative Procedure Act (APA) breach under an implied-in-fact 

contract. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559.” S.A. 6.

The Court of Federal Claims concluded that it lacked 

jurisdiction over Ms. Gray’s complaint. First, the court 

noted that “[t]his is the second time [Ms. Gray] has filed a 

complaint before the Court of Federal Claims concerning 

the Summerville property.” S.A. 1. Next, the court explained that “[t]he Court of Federal Claims does not have 

jurisdiction over cases sounding in bankruptcy.” Id. (citing 

Allustiarte v. United States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 

2001)). Finally, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Ms. Gray’s claims in equity and under the APA, 

the facts of which did not implicate actions by, or contracts 

with, the United States in any event. S.A. 1–2. 

In addition to dismissing the complaint, the Court of 

Federal Claims entered an anti-filing order “[i]n light of 

Ms. Gray’s repeated filing of frivolous complaints and other 

baseless pleadings.” S.A. 2 (“[S]ee Gray v. United States, 

1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix submitted with the government’s informal brief.

Case: 23-1955 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 04/05/2024
GRAY v. US 3

No. 22-749 (Fed. Cl. Jul. 13, 2022) (dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Gray v. United States, 

No. 22-541 (Fed. Cl. Sep[t]. 8, 2022) (dismissed for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction); Gray v. United States, No. 22-

717 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 19, 2022) (same); Gray v. United States, 

No. 22-848 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 3, 2022) (same).”). Pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court of Federal Claims certified that any appeal from its order would not be taken in 

good faith. S.A. 3. 

Ms. Gray timely appealed, and this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). 

We review the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for 

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Waltner v. 

United States, 679 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

The Court of Federal Claims is a federal tribunal of 

limited jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491. In the Tucker 

Act, Congress waived sovereign immunity for certain actions for monetary relief against the United States. See id. 

Plaintiffs who pursue claims under the Tucker Act “must 

identify a separate source of substantive law that creates 

the right to money damages.” Fisher v. United States, 402 

F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Here, while Ms. Gray 

named the United States as the defendant, the Court of 

Federal Claims was correct in concluding “the facts pleaded 

do not implicate the federal government.” S.A. 2. Additionally, the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to review bankruptcy-related claims under 11 

U.S.C. § 362, nor does it have jurisdiction over Ms. Gray’s

claims for equitable relief or arising under the APA. 

Blodgett v. United States, 792 F. App’x 921, 925 (Fed. Cir. 

2019) (nonprecedential) (“[D]istrict courts—and not the 

Claims Court—have ‘original and exclusive jurisdiction of 

all cases under title 11.’” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a))); 

Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 

(“The Tucker Act does not provide independent jurisdiction 

over such claims for equitable relief.”); Martinez v. United 

Case: 23-1955 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 04/05/2024
4 GRAY v. US

States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[T]he Court 

of Federal Claims lacks APA jurisdiction.”).

We have considered Ms. Gray’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we 

affirm.

AFFIRMED 

COSTS

No Costs.

Case: 23-1955 Document: 23 Page: 4 Filed: 04/05/2024