N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

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

______________________ ANTHONY P. LANE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

.

______________________

2014

- 5081

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:13

- cv

- 00571

- MCW, Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams.

______________________

Decided: September 12, 2014

______________________

A NTHONY P. L ANE , of Chicago, Illinois, pro se

.

J AMES W. P OIRIER , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litig ation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant

- appellee. With him on the brief w e re S TUART F. D ELERY , Assistant Atto rney General, R OBERT E. K IRS C HMAN , J R ., Director, and D EBORAH A. B YNUM , Assistant Director.

______________________LANE v. US 2

Before P ROST , Chief Judge, R EYNA , and H UGHES , Ci rcuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM

. Anthony P. Lane pro se appeals the United States Court of Federal Claims’ dismiss al of his action for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction. Because the Court of Federal Claims correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction over any of Mr. Lane’s claim s , we affirm

. B ACKGROUND

In Augu st 2013, Mr. Lane filed a complaint alleging jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1367, and 1491. He has since filed three amended complaints and a motion to consolidate separate trials. As best as we can determine

, Mr. Lane requests relief from various h arms , which appear to include : non- payment of social security and veteran benefits, non

- payment of tort damages, various criminal activities, improper conduct on the part of var ious federal officials and courts, illegal search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment

, wrongful eviction from his residence and denial of housing

, violation of his civil rights by his landlord, Pangea Ventures, LLC (“Pa ngea”), and breach of contract by Pangea

. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed M r. Lane’s suit for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction. Mr. Lane timely appealed

. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

D ISCUSSION

We review de novo th e Court of Federal Claims’ di smiss al for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction, and review its underlying factual findings for clear error. 1 Although

1 See Ferreiro v. United States , 350 F.3d 1318, 1324 (Fed. C ir. 2003) (citations omitted).LANE v. US 3

we afford pro se plaintiffs leniency for mere formalities, we cannot waive or overlook jurisdictional requirements

. 2
The Tucker Act confers jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims over “a ny claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Co ngress 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 ca ses not sounding in tort. ” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (2012). The trial court carefully reviewed Mr. Lane’s claims and held that none of them fall within the Tucker Act’s grant of jurisdiction

. On appeal, Mr. Lane appears to argue that the trial court had jurisdiction because his c laims are founded upon violations of his constitutional rights.
Having reviewed the matter carefully

, we hold that the trial court correctly held that it did not have jurisdi ction over Pangea’s alleged wrongful eviction of Mr. Lane

, even if we were to inter pret this claim as an alleged taking under the Fifth Amendment, because the trial court’s jurisdiction under the Tucker Act is limited to suits against the Federal Government

. 3 Similarly

, the trial court did not have jurisdiction ov er the alleged violations of Mr. Lane’s Fourth Amendment rights b ecause the Fourth Amendment does not provide for money damages. 4 E ven construing Mr. Lane’s allegations against

2 Kelley v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Labor , 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

3 United States v. Sherwood , 312 U.S. 584, 588

– 89 (1941).

4 Brown v. United States , 105 F.3d 621, 623

– 24 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).LANE v. US 4

federal officials and courts as Bivens actions, the trial court did not have jurisdiction over these claims. 5
The trial court also lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Lane’s other claims. For example, the trial court did not have jurisdiction over Mr. Lane’s veteran ’ s benefits claim because t hese claims must first be brought to the D epartment of Veterans Affairs

, which has not happened in this case. Decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs may only be appealed to the United States Court of A ppeals for Veterans Claims and then to this court. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252, 7292 (2012). Nor di d the trial court have jurisdiction to hear Mr. Lane’s claim s for social security benefits or tort damages

. 6
Finally, we deny Mr. Lane’s request to transfer his a ction to another forum. Under 28 U.S. C. § 1681, a court lacking jurisdiction “shall, in the i nterests of justice, transfer” an action to a court where it “could have been brought .” But Mr. Lane’s request does not explain why a transfer would be “in the interest of justice” or where his action could have been brought . A s a result, we find no basis to grant Mr. Lane’s request

. 7

C ONCLUSION For these reasons, we affirm the Court of Federal Claims ’ dismissal of Mr. Lane’s suit for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED

5 Brown , 105 F.3d at 624 citing Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics

, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

6 Marcus v. United States , 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ; Brown , F.3d at 623.

7 Jentoft v. United States , 450 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006).LANE v. US 5

C OSTS Each party shall bear its own costs.