NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LESA J. WERME,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2023-1088

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:22-cv-00422-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.

______________________ 

Decided: July 12, 2023

______________________ 

LESA WERME, Holland, MI, pro se. 

 DANIEL FALKNOR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM JAMES GRIMALDI, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________ 

Before HUGHES, LINN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Case: 23-1088 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 07/12/2023
2 WERME v. US

Ms. Lesa Werme filed suit in the United States 

Court of Federal Claims alleging that a federal district 

court judge effectuated a judicial taking of Ms. Werme’s 

property when the judge did not recuse herself from a lawsuit by Ms. Werme alleging that a bank related to the foreclosure of Ms. Werme’s home committed various torts. The 

Court of Federal Claims found that it lacked subject matter

jurisdiction to consider Ms. Werme’s allegations and dismissed the case. We affirm the dismissal. 

I 

Ms. Werme’s property was foreclosed in 2014. 

Ms. Werme thereafter filed a lawsuit challenging the foreclosure (the foreclosure case) as well as another lawsuit—

separate from the foreclosure case—alleging various torts 

against a bank (the torts case). In the foreclosure case, the 

foreclosure of Ms. Werme’s property was upheld. See 

Werme v. Huntington Nat’l Bank, No. 1:16-CV-479, 2016 

WL 4578006, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 2, 2016) (Werme I). 

The torts case was heard by a different federal judge. 

Compare Werme I, 2016 WL 4578006, at *1, with Werme v. 

Mortg. Ctr., LLC, No. 1:15-CV-130, 2018 WL 3458567, at 

*1 (W.D. Mich. July 6, 2018) (Werme II). The district court 

judge in the torts case resolved the claims in the bank’s favor in part because the foreclosure had been upheld in the 

foreclosure case. Werme II, 2018 WL 3458567, at *3. The 

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment in the torts case. See Werme v. Mortg. 

Ctr., LLC, 764 F. App’x 521 (6th Cir. March 20, 2019).

Ms. Werme then filed a complaint in the Court of 

Federal Claims alleging that the district court judge in the 

torts case had a financial conflict of interest and effectuated a judicial taking of her property by failing to recuse 

herself from the case. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Ms. Werme’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction because to determine whether a judicial taking occurred, the 

court found that it would have to review whether the district court judge should have recused herself. The trial 

Case: 23-1088 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 07/12/2023
WERME v. US 3

court declined to do so, holding that it lacked jurisdiction 

to scrutinize the actions of another tribunal. Accordingly, 

the trial court found that it lacked jurisdiction over 

Ms. Werme’s complaint. Ms. Werme appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

II 

We review de novo a Court of Federal Claims’ decision dismissing a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Diversified Grp. Inc. v. United States, 841 F.3d 975, 

980 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance 

of the evidence. Id. Although we give pro se plaintiffs more 

latitude in their pleadings than a party represented by 

counsel, they must still meet jurisdictional requirements. 

Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. 

Cir. 1987).

“[T]he Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of district courts or the 

clerks of district courts relating to proceedings before those 

courts.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 

1994). In the context of a judicial takings claim, neither we 

nor the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to review 

the decision of a United States district court if “resolution 

of [a plaintiff’s] judicial takings claim depends on the Court 

of Federal Claims’ finding that the [district court’s] decision was in error.” Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States, 862 

F.3d 1370, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 

That is the situation we have here. Resolution of 

Ms. Werme’s judicial takings claim turns on whether the 

district court judge in the torts case had a financial conflict 

of interest. See Appellant’s Br. 6; see also S.A. 3. Thus, 

Ms. Werme necessarily asks us to consider whether the district court judge should have recused herself based on an 

alleged financial interest in one of the parties and if the 

failure to recuse caused Ms. Werme to be deprived of her 

property without just compensation. The Court of Federal 

Claims was correct to hold that it lacked jurisdiction to 

Case: 23-1088 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 07/12/2023
4 WERME v. US

review such issues. See Joshua, 17 F.3d at 380; Petro-Hunt, 

862 F.3d at 1386; Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United 

States, 782 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Permitting 

parties aggrieved by the decisions of Article III tribunals to 

challenge the merits of those decisions in the Court of Federal Claims would circumvent the statutorily defined appellate process and severely undercut the orderly 

resolution of claims.”). The Court of Federal Claims therefore properly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.1

III

We have considered Ms. Werme’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive and affirm the dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

1 Ms. Werme also argues that the federal district 

court judge in the torts case had a conflict of interest because she owned stock in a company called General Dynamics and the individual who granted Ms. Werme title to 

the property at issue was potentially a member of a class 

action suit involving General Dynamics in 1994. Appellant’s Br. 5–6. This argument is made for the first time on 

appeal (compare Appellant’s Br. 5–6, with S.A. 20–24) and 

is therefore forfeited. Caterpillar Inc. v. Sturman Indus., 

Inc., 387 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Regardless, we 

fail to see a relevant connection between the foreclosure of 

Ms. Werme’s property and the class action lawsuit involving General Dynamics. 

Case: 23-1088 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 07/12/2023