NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

05-5028

RAVANNA SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________ DECIDED: May 18, 2005

__________________________ Before NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM.

Ravanna Sanders appeals from a decision of t he Court of Federal Claims dismissing the complaint. 1 We affirm the dismissal. BACKGROUND

1 Sanders v. United States , No. 04-1678L (Ct. Cl. Nov. 17, 2004). Mr. Sanders filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims, styled "Petition for Redress of Grievance in the Natu re of a Private International Administrative Remedy Demand." Mr. Sanders st ates that he is a member of the "Washitaw Nation of Muurs," an indigenous entity entitled to internat ional status, and that the TCF National Bank05-5028 2 appropriated the amount of $385,860.01 from a trust of which he is trustee and beneficiary. The allegations in the complaint are grouped into three classes. The first asserts a violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983, t he second claim alleges a number of torts under the general heading "Diversity of Citizenship and Political Ques tions Violations," and the third is brought under the Takings Clause of t he Fifth Amendment and also includes allegations of breach of contract and tort, and violati ons of various criminal statut es including 18 U.S.C. §241 (conspiracy against rights), 18 U.S.C. §1589 (coer cion), 18 U.S.C. §1951 (interference with commerce), 18 U.S.C. §872 (ext ortion), and 18 U.S.C. §1510(a) (obstruction of criminal investigation). Over thirty million dollars in damages are claim ed, based on statutory violations and the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 13th, and 14th Amendments of the Constitution. The Court of Federal Claim s found that there were no "intelligible allegations directed at the United States," and that the cited criminal and other code sections are not within the jurisdiction of the C ourt of Federal Claims. The court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. DISCUSSION We give plenary review to a dism issal for lack of jurisdiction. Brown v. United States , 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to "render judgment upon any claim against t he United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executiv e department, or upon any express or implied contra ct with the United St ates, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages not sounding in tort." 28 U.S.C. §1491. "The Tucker Act itself does not create a substantive cause of action; in order to come within the jurisdictional reach and the waiver05-5028 3 of the Tucker Act, a plaintiff mu st identify a separate source of substantive law that creates the right to money damages." Fisher v. United States , 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ( en banc ). Mr. Sanders states that the court has juri sdiction, focusing on two aspects of the complaint. First, he characteri zes the complaint as seeking review of a decision of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, based on the submission of an administrative claim pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §2671 et seq . Mr. Sanders states that the Comptroller has denied the claim. However, even on this characterization jurisdiction is absent, for the Court of Feder al Claims does not have jurisdiction of cases sounding in tort. See 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1) (the "United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction . . . in cases not sounding in tort"); Berdick v. United States , 612 F.2d 533, 536 (Ct. Cl. 1979) (the Court of Federal Cla ims does not have jurisdiction of tort claims). Mr. Sanders does not identify any ot her provision granting the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to review such a decision, and we are aware of none. In Mr. Sanders' argument c oncerning the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, he states that the actions of the Bank and its officers should be imputed to the United States, because they are in "the service" of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and thus the allegations in the complaint regar ding the Bank's conduct are directed against the United States. However, a charge of theft or misappropria tion of money is an issue of tortious or criminal conduct, whereas a Taki ngs claim arises only when the property is legally taken, for example by Act of Congress or by eminent domain. We cannot discern, in Mr. Sanders' complaint, an allegation of facts that may meet the requisite criteria. At most, the complaint states that the Office of the Comptroller was given notice of Mr. Sanders'05-5028 4 charge against the Bank, and did not act to r equire the Bank to make payment to Mr. Sanders. No duty has been breached by the United States. The a llegations, if accepted as true, do not provide a basis for holding that the United States took Mr. Sanders' property. See Casa De Cambio Comdiv S.A. De C.V. v. United States , 291 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (the involvement of the United St ates must be direct and substantial). The decision of the Court of Federal Claims must be affirmed. Each party shall bear its costs.