NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

DICHONDRA V. BOWDEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2021-1671

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims

in No. 1:20-cv-00752-RAH, Judge Richard A. Hertling

______________________

Decided: October 20, 2021

______________________

DICHONDRA V. BOWDEN, Moreno Valley, CA, pro se.

 IGOR HELMAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington 

DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M.

BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., REGINALD T. BLADES, JR.

______________________

Before DYK, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Case: 21-1671 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 10/20/2021
2 BOWDEN v. UNITED STATES

Dichondra Bowden appeals a decision of the United 

States Court of Federal Claims dismissing her complaint 

for lack of jurisdiction. See Bowden v. United States, 

No. 1:20-cv-752, 2021 WL 306464 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 29, 2021).

Because Ms. Bowden’s claims are outside the scope of the 

Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction, we affirm the dismissal.

I

Ms. Bowden was employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs from July 12, 2005 until August 2, 2017, 

when she was terminated. Following her termination, 

Ms. Bowden did not receive her final paycheck. She submitted an inquiry with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, which informed her that the money withheld 

from her final paycheck had been applied to debts she owed 

the VA and that this practice was customary when an employee with open debts left public service. Years later, on 

June 22, 2020, Ms. Bowden filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims seeking to recover the money withheld from 

her final paycheck and asserting that such withholding violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), as 

well as her due process and equal protection rights. She

also requested attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Ms. Bowden then moved to amend her complaint on 

October 7, 2020, seeking to add three more claims against 

the government for violations of 5 U.S.C. § 5514 and California Labor Code § 1311.5 and for constructive termination under California law. The Court of Federal Claims 

denied the motion to amend, but it permitted Ms. Bowden 

an opportunity to renew the motion in part—“limited only 

to the [federal] claim under § 5514” since the remaining 

claims were founded on state law and therefore outside the 

jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. Order Denying 

First Mot. to Amend at 2–3, Bowden, No. 20-cv-752, ECF 

Case: 21-1671 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 10/20/2021
BOWDEN v. UNITED STATES 3

No. 19. The court counseled, however, that any renewed 

motion would need to identify the particular provision of

§ 5514 that the government allegedly violated, explain 

“how that provision is money-mandating,” and “allege with 

specificity how the alleged violation of § 5514 caused the 

injury for which she seeks redress and that she is entitled 

to the money the VA collected as payment for her indebtedness.” Id. at 3.

Ms. Bowden submitted a renewed motion to amend on 

November 23, 2020. There, she identified § 2704 of the California Labor Code as the money-mandating provision under which her § 5514 claim arose. Then, in her reply in 

support of the renewed motion to amend, Ms. Bowden requested once again to add three more claims—this time for

violations of due process, civil rights conspiracy, and retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985. That 

motion was denied since neither a § 5514 claim founded on 

state law nor a federal claim arising from the civil rights 

statutes falls within the trial court’s limited jurisdiction.

The Court of Federal Claims then concluded that the “initial complaint filed in June 2020 remain[ed] the controlling 

statement of [Ms. Bowden’s] claims” and instructed the 

government to file its responsive pleading. Order Denying 

Second Mot. to Amend at 2, Bowden, No. 20-cv-752, ECF 

No. 24.

The government moved to dismiss the initial complaint 

and, on January 29, 2021, the Court of Federal Claims

granted its motion. Finding that Ms. Bowden had not alleged a willful violation of the FLSA, the court applied the 

Act’s two-year statute of limitations—as opposed to the 

Act’s three-year statute of limitations for willful violations. 

It then determined that Ms. Bowden’s FLSA claim was 

time-barred since her claim had accrued on August 5, 

2017—the day her final earning and leave statement issued for the last pay period following her termination—and 

she had not commenced this action until June 22, 2020. 

Case: 21-1671 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 10/20/2021
4 BOWDEN v. UNITED STATES

The Court of Federal Claims dismissed without prejudice 

Ms. Bowden’s remaining claims—requesting attorney’s 

fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and alleging due process and equal protection violations under the Fourteenth 

Amendment—for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 

the Tucker Act.

On reconsideration, the court denied Ms. Bowden’s request to add a new claim based on the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

Ms. Bowden timely appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

II

We review de novo a dismissal by the Court of Federal 

Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Frazer v. United States, 

288 F.3d 1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002). A plaintiff bears the 

burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of 

the evidence. Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 

(Fed. Cir. 2002). When a plaintiff appears pro se, we construe pleadings liberally and hold the plaintiff to “less 

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). But the 

leniency we extend to pro se litigants does not relieve them 

of jurisdictional requirements. Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of 

Lab., 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

On appeal, Ms. Bowden does not appear to challenge 

the trial court’s conclusion that the statute of limitations 

barred her FLSA claim, or its decision on reconsideration 

denying her request to add a FDCPA claim. But even if she 

did, we see no error in the trial court’s conclusions.

Her appeal appears to challenge the court’s dismissal 

of her due process and equal protection claims—though she 

does not explain why the trial court erred in dismissing 

Case: 21-1671 Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 10/20/2021
BOWDEN v. UNITED STATES 5

those claims for lack of jurisdiction.1 In addition, Ms. 

Bowden suggests that the court should have granted her 

motion to amend the complaint to allege violations of 

5 U.S.C. § 5514. She also asserts, for the first time on appeal, claims for breach of contract, constructive fraud, and 

negligent misrepresentation. None of Ms. Bowden’s arguments, however, put forth a claim within the Court of Federal Claims’ limited jurisdiction or establish any error in 

that court’s decisions.

The Tucker Act provides the Court of Federal Claims

with jurisdiction over claims “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. While the Tucker Act waives 

sovereign immunity by granting jurisdiction over certain 

claims, it “does not [itself] create a substantive cause of action.” Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 

(Fed. Cir. 2005). Rather, “the plaintiff must identify a separate contract, regulation, statute, or constitutional provision that provides for money damages against the United 

States.” Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 

(Fed. Cir. 2013). And “the absence of a money-mandating 

source [is] fatal to the court’s jurisdiction under the Tucker 

Act.” Fisher, 402 F.3d at 1173.

Here, the Court of Federal Claims correctly concluded 

that it lacked jurisdiction over Ms. Bowden’s due process,

equal protection, and § 5514 claims for lacking a moneymandating source. “The law is well settled” that the Due 

1 Ms. Bowden filed a motion for oral argument or a 

memorandum in lieu of oral argument on September 14, 

2016. We accept the document as a memorandum in lieu of 

oral argument and consider the arguments made therein.

Case: 21-1671 Document: 19 Page: 5 Filed: 10/20/2021
6 BOWDEN v. UNITED STATES

Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth 

Amendment “do not mandate the payment of money” and 

therefore do not provide causes of action under the Tucker 

Act. Smith, 709 F.3d at 1116. Similarly, Ms. Bowden has 

not identified which provision of § 5514 she contends the 

government violated, nor does she argue that any § 5514 

provision is money-mandating. Indeed, her allegations center around the timing of and process by which the VA’s debt 

collection occurred, and she does not appear to challenge 

the debts themselves. Thus, her allegations suggest a violation of the notice provisions in § 5514(a)(2), which are not 

money-mandating. See Carroll v. United States, 120 Fed. 

Cl. 267, 270 (2015) (explaining that the right to inspect and 

copy provision, set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(2), is not 

money-mandating); Wilburn v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 

495, 499 (2011) (“The notice provisions of the Debt Collection Improvement Act are bereft of any indication that a 

payee subject to the Treasury Offset Program may obtain 

money damages from the government if the notice given 

the payee is deficient.”). Therefore, the Court of Federal 

Claims does did not have jurisdiction.

Ms. Bowden’s breach of contract, constructive fraud, 

and negligent misrepresentation allegations do not warrant a different result. Ms. Bowden did not present those 

allegations to the Court of Federal Claims, and she cannot 

raise the issues for the first time on appeal. See Finch v. 

Hughes Aircraft Co., 926 F.2d 1574, 1576–77 (Fed. Cir. 

1991).

III

Because Ms. Bowden’s claims are outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

Case: 21-1671 Document: 19 Page: 6 Filed: 10/20/2021
BOWDEN v. UNITED STATES 7

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 21-1671 Document: 19 Page: 7 Filed: 10/20/2021