# 0R[$$B{At

l|ntllt 

# @nitr! btutts @ourt of

# fe[nsl @tstmg

YVONNE 

### HICKMAN, Pro Se 

## No. 15-66C 

### (Filed: August

### 4,2015) 

# FILED

) ) ) 

### Plaintiflf, 

# ) Tucker 

### Act; 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1491; Subject



# ) Matter Jurisdiction; RCFC 12(b)(1); 

# ) Veterans 

### Benefits; 

### Motion for Recusal; 28 

# ) U.S.C. $

### ass(a) 

### THE LINITED STATES OF

# AMERICA, ) ) 

## Defendant. ) ) ) )

Yvonne 

### Hickman, Glen 

### Bumie, 

### MD, 

### plaintiff pro se.


### Matthew P. Roche, 

### T'ial Attomey, 

### with whom were 

### Reginald T. Blades, 

### Jr., Assistant 

### Director, Robert E. Kirschman, 

### Jr.,DirecIor, Benjamin C. 

### Mizer, 

### Acling Assistant 

### Attorney General, Commercial 

### Litigation Branch, 

### Civil Division, United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, 

### D.C., for defendant. 

### OPINIONAND ORDER

The 

### plaintiff in this case, Yvonne 

### Hickman, appearing p1q se, contends that the government engaged 

### in apattern and practice 

### ofcivil rights 

### violations and conspired 

### to deprive her 

### of due process 

### of law and equal 

### protection under the Fourteenth Amendment 

### ofthe United States

### Constitution. Compl. 

### fl

### 3. According to Ms. Hickman, the 

### United States Department 

### of Veterans

### Affairs 

### ("VA"), relying onwhat she claims was a

### fraudulently obtained 

### divorce from her service-disabled husband, 

### wrongfully denied 

### or interiered

### with her 

### "marital property rights, spousal benefits and apportionment 

### pay." Compl. fl

## 4. She claims entitlement 

### to monetary damages pursuant to the FederalTorts Claims 

### Act 

### (.'FTCA'), 28 

### U.S.C. S$ 1346(b), 2671-80, as 

### well as damages 

### for interfering 

### with her 

### civil rights pursuant

### to 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1343(a)(1)-(a) and 42 

### U.S.C $ 

### 1985(3). Compl. flll 3, 8.
This case is 

### currently before the Court on

### plaintiff s

### motion for recusal 

### of the undersigned 

### judge and the 

### govemment's motion to dismiss 

### plaintiff s

### complaint for lack

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction pursuant to 

### Rule 12(b)(1) 

### ofthe Rules 

### of the Court 

### ofFederal Claims AUG

## - 4 2015
U.S. COURT OF FEDERALCLAIMS

### C'RCFC'). For the reasons set

### forth below, 

### plaintiff s

### motion seeking recusal is 

### DENIED, and

the 

### govemment's motion to dismiss 

### for lack 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction is 

### GRANTED.T


### BACKGROUND2

On September 

### 10,2007, the 

### plaintiff manied Nathaniel 

### Hickman. Compl. Ex. B at 1' 

### Mr. Hickman is aveteran 

### of the 

### Vietnam 

### war who receives

### disability compensation benefits 

### from the

### VAfor 100% service-connected post-traumatic stress 

### disorder. Id. at

### 2. On December 

### 4,2009, Ms. Hickman separated 

### from 

### Mr. Hickman. Id. at 4.
Thereafter, 

### Ms. Hickman 

### filed a

### claim for an apportionment 

### of 

### Mr. Hickman's 

### VA benefits. See

### Compl. Ex.

### A at 1

### (VA letter acknowledging 

### claim dated February 

### 22'2010). On 

### March 8,2010, 

### Ms. Hickman submitted a request that the

### VA appoint a guardian 

### to assist

### Mr' Hickman in the 

### handling of his 

### affairs

### with the

## VA. Id. at 3 

### (Application for appointment 

### of guardian). In a statement submitted 

### in support 

### of her request, she alleged that 

### Mr. Hickman was not competent

### to manage his finances due

### to drug 

### addiction and mental health 

### problems. Id.

On

### April 1,2010, the

### VA's Atlanta Regional 

### Office awarded 

### Ms. Hickman $ 150 per month as an apportionment 

### of 

### Mr. Hickman's 

### VA benefits. Id. at

### 5. Thereafter, however, 

### on August 4, 2010, 

### Mr. Hickman sued 

### Ms. Hickman for a

### divorce in the Superior Court 

### of Glynn County, Georgia. Compl. Ex. B at4-8 

### ("Domestic Relations 

### Financial

### Affidavit"). Ms. 

### Hickman did not appear 

### for a

### final hearing on 

### Mr. Hickman's divorce action, and a

### final judgment and decree 

### ofdivorce was entered on September 

### 13,2011. Id. at 13.


### In the meantime, before the divorce decree was issued, 

### Ms. Hickman 

### filed a

### claim for an increased apportionment 

### of 

### Mr. Hickman's 

### benefits. Compl. Ex.

### A at 6 

### (August 29, 201 1

### letter from Atlanta Regional 

### Office ofthe

### VA requesting 

### additional information in connection 

### with the 

### claim for an increased 

### apportionment). This increase was 

### not granted; instead, 

### in light 

### ofthe Hickmans' divorce, the

### VA terminated 

### Ms. Hickman's marital apportionment 

### of 

### Mr. Hickman's 

### benefits. Comp. 

### Ex.

### A at 9-11.
On 

### October 15,2012, the

### VA sent 

### Ms. Hickman a letter 

### providing her

### with an 

### opportunity to dispute the 

### termination of her 

### marital apportionment. 

### Id. After Ms' Hickman unsuccessfully appealed the

### termination 

### with the

### VA's Atlanta Regional 

### Office, id. at 12, Ms. 

### Hickman sought 

### review in the Board 

### ofVeterans' Appeals 

## ('BVA). Id. at 

### 14. The 

### disposition ofthat request 

### for review is not apparent 

### from the 

### complaint or its accompanying attachments. On October 30, 2014, however, the

### VA Civilian Health and 

### Medical program denied her 

### claim for medical benefits because she was not 

### eligible on the date thatthe service was claimed. 

### Compl. fl 9; 

### Compl. Ex. 

### B at 14.

r 

### Ms. Hickman has

### filed a 

### motion to proceed 

### in forma pauperis. The 

### Court 

### GRANTS that 

### motion for purposes 

### ofdeciding the pending 

### motion to dismiss.

2The facts set

### forth in 

### this section are based on the allegations 

### in the 

### complaint and the 

### exhibits attached to the 

### complaint,which are 

### all accepted astrue 

### for putposes

### ofdeciding the sovernment's 

### motion to dismiss.On January 23, 2015, 

### Ms. Hickman filed this 

### action. The govemment 

### filed its 

### motion to

dismiss on 

### March26,2015, ECF 

### No. 6,

### towhich Ms. Hickman responded on

### April 17

### '2015, ECF 

### No.

### 7. After the 

### goveDment 

### filed its 

### Reply 

### Brief, ECF 

### No. 8, 

### Ms' Hickman sought 

### to

### file a document styled 

### "Plaintiff s Response 

### to Defendant's 

### untimely Reply." The 

### court directed the 

### clerk to 

### retum this document to 

### Ms. Hickman, in 

### light ofthefact that the

### courl's rules do 

### not provide a 

### right to

### file asurreply and 

### Ms. Hickman had 

### not sought leave 

### ofthe court to

### file such

a

### document. Order 1, 

### May 22,2015, ECF 

### No. 

### 9. Plaintiff filed a response 

### tothe 

### Court's order 

### in which she contended thatthe defendant had been permitted 

### to

### file a second 

### motion to dismiss
on

### April 8,2015 without the 

### Court's leave. 

### Pl.'sOpp'ntoCt. Order 

### at 

### l,June 15,2015, ECF 

### No. 10. Thereafter, on June 

### 26,2015, Ms. Hickman 

### filed a 

### motion requesting that the undersigned recuse herself 

### from this 

### case. Pl.'sNoticeto Recuse Judge Kaplan, 

### ECFNo. 11 [hereinafter "Recusal 

### Mot."].
DISCUSSION 

# L Plaintiff s

### Motion for Recusal

As noted above, the

### plaintiff has

### filed a

### motion requesting thatthe undersigned recuse herself 

### from this case. A

### judge must recuse herself 

### "in any proceeding 

### in

### which [the

### judge's] impartiality might reasonably be

### questioned." 28 

### U.S.C. $

### 455(a). This includes 

### not only when there is actual bias or prejudice, 

### but also when there isthe appearance 

### ofpartiality. 

### Id. This is
an objective test that mandates recusal 

### "when a reasonable person, 

### knowing all thefacts,

### would question the

### judge's 

### impartiality." Allphin v. United States, 758 

### F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir2014) 

### (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co.

### v. Bausch 

### & Lomb, Inc. 

### , 882F.2d 1556, 1568 (Fed. 

### Cir' 1989)).

A

### judge is presumed to be 

### impartial, and 

### plaintiff bears a 

### "heavy burden"

### ofproving otherwise. See 

### Baldwin Hardware 

### Com.v. Franksu Enter. Corp., 78 F.3d 550, 557 (Fed. 

### Cir' 1996) 

### (concluding appellants 

### did not carry 

### "the heavy burden" necessary to prove 

### their recusal 

### claim). In that regard, 

### "judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a

### valid basis 

### for abias or 

### parliality motion.

. .

## . Almost invariably, they are proper grounds 

### for appeal, 

### notfor recusal'" 

### Liteky v. 

### United States, 510 

### U.S. 540, 555 (1994).



### Inthis case, 

### Ms. Hickman has requested recusal on the grounds that the undersigned 

### committed 

### "intentional" legal error 

### in "accept[ing] Defendant's 

### untimely second 

### motion

### without leave 

### ofcourt" and 

### "fail[ing] to sanction 

### Defendant's counsel as appropriate 

### for his fraud upon the 

### court" pursuant 

### to RCFC 11(b). Recusal 

### Mot. 1. According to

### plaintifl these actions establish thatthe undersigned 

### judge "cannot carry outthe duties 

### ofadjudicating 

### Plaintiff s case 

### without committing a

### fraudulent

### act." Id. Although not entirely clear,

### plaintiffs motion for recusal appears

### to have been 

### provoked by the 

### Court's May 

### 22,2015 order 

### directingthe 

### retum to 

### plaintiff ofthe document lodged 

### with the 

### Clerk and styled 

### "Plaintiff s Response to Defendant's 

### Untimely 

### Reply." See

### Order 1; 

### Pl.'s Opp'n to Ct. Order 

### at 1

## . Thus, she asserts that

### while the defendantwas allegedly permitted to 

### file a second 

### motion to dismiss on

### April 8,2015, 

### without requesting the leave

### ofcourt, 

### plaintiff
was 

### not given a

### similar opporlunity when she responded 

### to 

### "corect the 

### record" in her "Response

### io Defendant's 

### Untimely Reply" which the

### court directed the 

### clerk to retumto her 

### unfiled. Pl.'s

Opp'n to Ct. Order 

### at 

## l.
Plaintiff s basis 

### for requesting 

### recusal-that the defendantwas allowed 

### to

### file a second 

### motion to dismiss on

### April 8,2015 

### or

### file pleadings out 

### of

## time-is not supported by the record. The government has 

### frled only one 

### motion to dismiss in 

### this action and that 

### motion was

### timely filed under the rules 

### of this 

### Courl.l

In any event, as noted above, 

### priorjudicial rulings alone 

### "almost never constitute a

### valid basis 

### for a bias or 

### partiality 

### motion." Litekv, 510 

### U.S. at

### 555. Because a reasonable person 

### would not question the undersigned's 

### impartiality based on the matters raised by the 

### plaintiff, the undersigned

### will not recuse herself 

### from this case. Therefore, 

### plaintiff s

### motion seeking recusal is 

### DENIED. 

## II. Defendant's 

### Motion to Dismiss 

### for Lack of Subject 

### Matter Jurisdiction 

## A. Standard of Review 

### for Motion to Dismiss

In deciding a

### motion to dismiss 

### for lack of subject-matter

### jurisdiction, the 

### Court presumes 

### all undisputed factual allegations to betrue and conshues

### all reasonable inferences 

### in favor

### ofthe 

### plaintiff. Scheuer v. 

### Rhodes,416 

### U.S.232,236 (1974). Jurisdiction is athreshold issue, and as such, 

### "a court must 

### satisff itselfthat it hasjurisdiction to hear and decide a case before proceeding 

### to the 

### merits." Ultra-Precision 

### Mfg.. Ltd. v. Ford 

### Motor 

### co., 338 

### F.3d 1353, 1356 (Fed. 

### Cir.2003). The 

### plaintiff bears the burden 

### of establishing subj ect matter 

### jurisdiction, Alder Terrace. 

### Inc.v. 

### United States, 161 

### F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1998), and must do so 

### by a preponderance 

### ofthe evidence. Brandt v. 

### united states, 710 

### F.3d 1369,1373 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2013)' 

### If defendant challenges 

### jurisdiction, the

### plaintiff cannot merely 

### rely upon allegations in the 

### complaint, but must instead 

### bring forth relevant, competent 

### proofto establish 

### jurisdiction by a preponderance 

### of the 

### evidence. 

### McNutt v. Gen. 

### Motors Acceptance 

### Com

,298 

### U.S. 178' 189 

### (1936); see also Cedars-Sinai 

### Medical Ctr.

### V. Watkins, 11 

### F.3d 1573,1584 (1993).



### While a 

### pro se

### plaintiff spleadings are held 

### to "less stringent standards than

### formal pleadings drafted 

### by lawyers," Haines

### v. Kerner, 404 

### U.S. 519,520 (1972), even pro se

### plaintiffs must persuade the Court that

### jurisdictional requirements have been

### met. Bemard 

### v. United states, 59 Fed. 

### Cl. 497

### ,500 (2004), 

### affd, 98 F.

### App'x 860 (Fed.

### cir. 2004).

3

### Plaintiff filed her 

### complaint on January 

### 23,2015, and the defendant 

### filed a 

### motion to dismiss pursuant

### to RCFC 12(b)(1) on 

### March 26,

### 20i5 in accordance 

### with RCFC 

### 12(a)(l), which allows the defendant 60 days

### to

### file a responsive pleading to

### plaintiffs complaint. Under RCFC 7.2(bX1), 

### plaintiff had 28 days 

### to

### file a response 

### to defendant's 

### motion, which she

### timely filed on

### April 17,2015. Under RCFC 7.2(b)(2), defendant 

### had 14 days 

### to

### file a 

### replyto 

### plaintiff s response, 

### which defendant

### timely filed on 

### May 4,

### 2015. As stated in the 

### Court's May 22,2015 order, the rules do not 

### provide for any other pleadings 

### in connection 

### with a

### motion to 

### dismiss. Thus, 

### plaintiff was required 

### to askthe permission 

### ofthe Court 

### to

### file a response to the 

### govemment's reply, which she

### did not do.

## B. Application of 

### Standard inThis Case

The Court 

### ofFederal Claims has

### jurisdiction under theTucker 

### Act to hear 

### "any claim against the 

### united statesfounded either 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. $ 1a91(a)(1) 

### (2012). The Tucker 

### Act waives the sovereign 

### immunity ofthe 

### United States 

### to

### allow

asuit 

### for money damages, 

### United States 

### v. 

### Mitchell, 463 U.S. 

### 206'212 (1983), but 

### it does 

### not confer any substantive 

### rights. united statesv.

### Testan,424U.5.392,398 (1976). Therefore, a 

### plaintilf seeking 

### to invoke the 

### court's Tucker

### Actjurisdiction must 

### identify an independent
source

### ofa substantive 

### right to money damages 

### from the 

### United States arising out

### ofa contract, statute, 

### regulation or 

### constitutional 

### provision. Jan's 

### Helicopter Serv.. Inc. 

### v. Fed.

### Aviation Admin., 525 

### F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2008).


### "Not every 

### claim invoking the 

### Constitution, afederal statute, or a 

### regulation is cognizable under the 

### Tucker

### Act." Mitchell, 463 U.S. at

### 216. "[T]he claimant must demonstrate that the source 

### of substantive law he relies 

### upon 'can 

### fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Govemment 

### for the damages 

### sustained."' 

## ld at216-l1 (quoting Testan,424 U.S. at

### 400). Inthis case, 

### Ms. Hickman has 

### failedto meet her burden

## of demonstrating 

### this Court's 

### jurisdiction over her claims.


### Ms. Hickman's prima.ry contention is that the

### VA wrongfully terminated her 

### marital apportionment and other

### VA benefits based on what she claims is an 

### invalid divorce decree. 

### compl. fl

### 7. Pl.'s Resp. 

### 5-6. Specifically, she contends that the divorce decree was

### fraudulent because her husband lacked legal capacity to represent 

### himself atthe 

### time of the divorce and 

### that the 

### court granting the divorce was a 

### lawyer sitting pro hac

### vice. Id.; Compl. t|

### 7; see also Ga. Code 

### Ann $ 15-6- 14 (201 5) 

### (authorizing an attorney 

### who is not a

### judge to "exercise 

### allfunctions of 

### ajudge" in specified circumstances).


### This Court, 

### of course, lacks

### jurisdiction to review the

### validity of a divorce decree issued 

### by a Georgia court under Georgia 

### law. More to the 

### point, this Court lacks

### jurisdiction over veterans' benefits 

### claims. See 38 

### U.S.C. $ 511(a) (stating that decisions by the Secretary are 

### "final and conclusive and may not be reviewed 

### by any other 

### official or 

### by any 

### court," subject 

### to certain exceptions); seealso 

### Trevino v. United States, 1 13 Fed. 

### Cl.204,209 (2013) 

### (holding that the 

### United States Court 

### ofFederal Claims does not have

### jurisdiction over claims 

### for denial 

### of veterans' 

### benefits), 

### af?d,557 Fed.

### App'x 995 (Fed. 

### Cir.2014). Instead, denial 

### of an

### application for benefits may 

### only be appealed to the

### BVA. See 38 

### U.S.C. $ 710a(a) 

### ("All questions 

### in a matter 

### which under section 51 1(a) 

### ofthis title is subject 

### to decision 

### by the Secretary shall be subject

### to one 

### review on appeal 

### tothe Secretary. 

### Final decisions on such appeals shall be made by 

### the

### [BVA]."). BVA decisions, 

### in tum, may 

### only be appealed 

### to the 

### United States Court 

### of Appeals 

### for Veterans 

### Claims. See 38 

### U.S.C. $ 7252(a) 

### ("The Court 

### of Appeals 

### for Veterans 

### Claims shall have exclusive

### jurisdiction to review decisions 

### ofthe

### [BVA]."). Decisions 

### ofthat court are then reviewable by the 

### United States Court 

### ofAppeals 

### for the Federal 

### Circuit. See 3 8 

### U.S.C. $ 7292(c) 

## (grriing the 

### United States Court 

### ofAppeals for the Federal 

### Circuit exclusive 

### jurisdiction to 

### review the denial 

### of veterans' benefits bythe 

### United States Court 

### ofAppeals

### for Veterans Claims).

### Nor doesthis Court have

### jurisdiction over 

### Ms. Hickman's claims based on the Federal



### Tort Claims

### Act 

### ("FTCA"). See Compl. 

### fl 2 

### (allegingthat 

### "this court has the 

### authorityto grant monetary 

### relief under 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 1346(b)'). Although the 

### FTCA "waives sovereign 

### immunity

as

### to claims arising 

### in

### tort," 

### it expressly vests federal 

### district courts 

### with "exclusive 

### jurisdiction" to entertain those 

### claims. Awad v. United States, 301 

### F.3d 1367,1372 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2002); see also 28

### u.s.c. $ 1346(b). 

### Similarly, this Court does not possess 

### jurisdiction to entertain 

### Ms. Hickman's remaining tort claims on any other 

### basis. See 

### Compl. fl 5 (accusing the

### VA of conspiracy 

### to commit fraud,

as

### well asfraudulent misrepresentation and 

### concealment). "The plain language 

### of the 

### Tucker Act excludes

### from the Court 

### of Federal Claims

### jurisdiction claims sounding in

## tort'" Rick's Mushroom Serv.. 

### Inc.v. 

### United States, 521 

### F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. 

### Cir.2008) (citing 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 1491(a)(l). Indeed, theTucker 

### Act expressly 

### limits this Court's 

### jurisdiction to claims 

### for damages 

### "not sounding 

### in

### tort." 28U.S.C. $1491(a)(l). See Shearin 

### v. United States,992F.2d 1195,1197 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1993). Ms. Hickman's various 

### tort claims 

### of misrepresentation, fraud, and conspiracy must, therefore, be dismissed 

### for lack 

### of subject-matter

### jurisdiction. See 

### Berdick v. 

### United States, 

### 612F.2d 533, 536 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1979) (conspiracy is a

### torl); Jumah v. 

### United States, 90 Fed. 

### Cl. 603, 607-08 (2009) (misrepresentation is a

### tort that 

### falls outside

### this Court's 

### jurisdiction); Phang 

### v. United States, 87 Fed. 

### Cl. 321, 325 (2009) (no

### jurisdiction over fraud claims that sound in 

### tort).
Ms. Hickman's claims under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are

### similarly beyond this Court's j

### urisdiction asthose 

### constitutional provisions are not money 

### mandating. See 

### LeBlanc v. 

### United States, 50 

### F.3d 1025,1028 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995) 

### (holding that 

### "alleg[ed]violations 

### of 

### [plaintiff s] rights underthe Due Process Clauses 

### ofthe Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, [and] the Equal Protection Clause 

### ofthe Fourteenth 

### Amendment" are not 

### "a sufficient basis

### for jurisdiction because they do not mandate payment 

### of money by the 

### Govemment"); Camrth v. 

### United States, 627 F

### .2d 1068, 1081 

### (Ct. 

### CI. 1980) 

### (holding that the Court does not possess 

### jurisdiction "over claims based uponthe Due Process and Equal Protection guarantees 

### of the 

### Fifth Amendment, becausethese

### constitutional provisions do not obligate the Federal ovemment 

### to pay money damages").4 

### Finally, this Court does not possess

### jurisdiction to entertain claims 

### for damages based on 

### civil rights 

### violations brought pursuant

### to 28 

### U.S.C. $ 13a3(a)Q)-(a) and 42 

### U.S.C' S 1985(3), because

### jurisdiction over such claims resides 

### exclusively in the

### district 

### courts. See 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 13a3(a) (stating that 

### "district courts shall have 

### original

### jurisdiction" over 

### civil claims brought pursuant

### to 42 

### U.S.C. $ 1985); 

### Del Rio v. 

### United States, 87 Fed. 

### Cl. 536, 540 (2009); 

### Marlin v.

4

### In her response to 

### plaintiff s

### motion to dismiss, 

### Ms. Hickman alleged 

### for the

### first time that the government 

### violated her 

### FirstAmendment 

### rights. Pl.'s Resp. 8

### ("Plaintiffl'sl claims are pursuant 

### to the 

### U.S. Constitution 

### involving the 

### FirstAmendment, the 

### prohibited practice 

### that prevented 

### Plaintiff the 

### right to petition the government 

### in redress regarding a pro hac

### vice 

### divorce."). The Court also lacks 

### jurisdiction over

### this 

### claim. The 

### FirstAmendment is not a money mandating 

### provision ofthe

### Constitution. United Statesv. 

### Connolly,716 F.2d 882, 886- 87 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1983) 

### ("We agree

### with the Court 

### of Claims thatthe

### first amendment, standing alone, cannot be so interpreted as

### to command the payment 

### of money.").

### United States, 63 Fed. 

### Cl. 475,476 

### (2005). Thus, to the extentthat 

### Ms. Hickman relies on 42

U.S.C. $ 1985(3) 

### in conjunction 

### with 28 

### U.S.C. $ 

### l3a3(a)(l)-(a) as a source 

### of substantive 

### law that provides a 

### right to money damages, her reliance on those 

### provisions is 

### misplaced. See Shame v. 

### United States, 112 Fed. 

### CL 468,476 (2013) 

### (holding that 

### ,,jwisdiction to hear such a 

### claim belongs 

### exclusively to the 

### district courts, and the Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims is not a

### district court" (intemal citations omitted)).


### CONCLUSION

For the reasons set

### forth above, 

### plaintiff s

### motion for the undersignedjudge 

### to recuse herself is 

### DENI[,D, the 

### govemment's motion to dismiss under 

### RCFC 12(bX1) is 

### GRANTED, and 

### plaintiff s

### complaint is 

### DISMISSED without prejudice 

### for lack

### of subject matter 

### jurisdiction. Each side shall bear its 

### own costs. The

### clerk ofthe

### court is directed 

### to enter 

### judgment accordingly. 

### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED. 

# L/L

- ELAINE D. 

### KAPLAN Judge