NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

______________________ 

ANTHONY P. LANE, of Chicago, Illinois, pro se. 

JAMES W. POIRIER, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. With 

him on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Assistant Attorney General, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., Director, and 

DEBORAH A. BYNUM, Assistant Director.

______________________ 
2 LANE v. US

Before PROST, Chief Judge, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Anthony P. Lane pro se appeals the United States 

Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal 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 claims, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

In August 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 harms, 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 various 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 (“Pangea”), and breach of contract by Pangea. 

The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. 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). 

DISCUSSION

We review de novo the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal 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. Cir. 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 “any claim against the United States 

founded 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. § 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 claims 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 jurisdiction over Pangea’s alleged wrongful eviction of Mr. Lane, 

even if we were to interpret 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 over the alleged 

violations of Mr. Lane’s Fourth Amendment rights because the Fourth Amendment does not provide for money 

damages.4 Even 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).

 
4 LANE v. US

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 these claims must first be brought to the Department 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 Appeals for Veterans Claims and then to this court. 38 

U.S.C. §§ 7252, 7292 (2012). Nor did the trial court have 

jurisdiction to hear Mr. Lane’s claims for social security 

benefits or tort damages.6 

Finally, we deny Mr. Lane’s request to transfer his action to another forum. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1681, a court 

lacking jurisdiction “shall, in the interests 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. As a result, we find no 

basis to grant Mr. Lane’s request.7

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, we affirm the Court of Federal 

Claims’ dismissal of Mr. Lane’s suit for lack of subjectmatter 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

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.