NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SIMONA TANASESCU, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF 

AND S.T., A MINOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2021-2117

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:21-cv-01289-ZNS, Judge Zachary N. Somers.

______________________ 

Decided: December 7, 2021

______________________ 

SIMONA TANASESCU, Tustin, CA, pro se. 

 MILES KARSON, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

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

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, MARTIN F. HOCKEY,

JR. 

 ______________________ 

Before LOURIE, MAYER, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

Case: 21-2117 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 12/07/2021
2 TANASESCU v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Simona Tanasescu appeals from a decision of the Court 

of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing her breach 

of contract claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 

Tanasescu v. United States, No. 21-1289 C, 2021 WL 

2010295 (Fed. Cl. May 19, 2021). Because the Claims 

Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate claims asking the 

Claims Court to review the decisions of other federal 

courts, we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

In her complaint before the Claims Court, Ms. Tanasescu asserts that the United States District Court for 

the Central District of California, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, and the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit failed 

to correctly apply the law in three cases involving Ms. Tanasescu. She asserts that this failure is a breach of an implied contract between herself and the Department of 

Justice (“DOJ”).

The Claims Court dismissed Ms. Tanasescu’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Tanasescu, 

2021 WL 2010295, at *1. The court found that Ms. Tanasescu’s complaint asked it to review various decisions of 

other federal courts—something that the Claims Court 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction to do. Id. at *2.

Ms. Tanasescu appeals the Claims Court’s dismissal of 

her case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have 

jurisdiction to review the Claims Court’s final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

II. DISCUSSION

On appeal, Ms. Tanasescu argues that the Claims 

Court improperly dismissed her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. She asserts that the Claims Court 

made both substantive and procedural errors. Ms. 

Case: 21-2117 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 12/07/2021
TANASESCU v. US 3

Tanasescu asserts that the Claims Court substantively 

erred by ignoring the allegedly contractual nature of her 

claims. She identifies two purported procedural errors underlying the Claims Court’s decision and one purported 

procedural error by this court. First, she asserts that the 

Claims Court changed the “Nature-of-Suit Code” in the 

case cover sheet from 114 (“Contract – Service – (CDA)”) to 

528 (“Miscellaneous – Other”) without notifying her. Second, she asserts that the Claims Court changed the 

“Amount Claimed” in the case cover sheet from an estimated $320,000,000 to $1,000,000, again, without notifying her. Finally, Ms. Tanasescu asserts that she was never 

served with a Notice of Docketing of her appeal before this 

court.

This court reviews Claims Court decisions to dismiss 

for lack of jurisdiction de novo. Campbell v. United States, 

932 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue that courts must consider before 

they consider the merits of a claim. Steel Co. v. Citizens for 

a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998). As Ms. Tanasescu is a pro se plaintiff, her pleadings are liberally construed. But that does not alleviate her burden to 

demonstrate that the Claims Court has jurisdiction. See

Beltran v. Shinseki, 447 F. App’x 208, 209 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 

Ms. Tanasescu still bears the burden of proving subject 

matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See

Freeman v. United States, 875 F.3d 623, 628 (Fed. Cir. 

2017). 

The Claims Court’s jurisdiction, if any, over Ms. Tanasescu’s case arises under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1491(a). The Tucker Act gives the Claims Court “jurisdiction to render judgment upon 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.” Id. The Tucker Act is “a 

Case: 21-2117 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 12/07/2021
4 TANASESCU v. US

jurisdictional statute; it does not create any substantive 

right enforceable against the United States for money damages.” United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). 

Thus, “a plaintiff must 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). 

Ms. Tanasescu seems to argue that the separate source 

of substantive law in this case is the Contract Disputes Act 

of 1978, 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109. Ms. Tanasescu asserts 

that she had an implied contract with the DOJ and alleges 

that the DOJ breached this contract when the United 

States District Court for the Central District of California, 

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of 

California, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided 

various motions and cases in ways adverse to Ms. Tanasescu’s interests. 

At its core, Ms. Tanasescu’s complaint asks the Claims 

Court to review decisions of other federal courts. The alleged errors in those decisions form the “breach” in her 

“breach of implied contract” claims. The Claims Court does 

not have subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions 

of other federal courts. Straw v. United States, 4 F.4th 

1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (holding that the Claims Court 

does not have jurisdiction to review district court decisions); Allustiarte v. United States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1352 

(Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the “proper forum for appellants’ challenges to the bankruptcy trustees’ actions [which 

were approved by the bankruptcy court] . . . lies in the 

Ninth Circuit, not the Court of Federal Claims”). Creative 

claiming cannot endow the Claims Court with jurisdiction 

to review the decisions of other federal courts. See Straw, 

4 F.4th at 1360–61 (affirming the Claims Court’s decision 

that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a 

Fifth Amendment takings claim in which the alleged taking was effected when a district court dismissed a tort 

claim). 

Case: 21-2117 Document: 14 Page: 4 Filed: 12/07/2021
TANASESCU v. US 5

The purported procedural errors identified by Ms. Tanasescu do not change our analysis. The nature-of-claim 

code and the amount claimed played no role in the Claims 

Court’s decision, which was based on the content of Ms. Tanasescu’s complaint. The Claims Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate Ms. Tanasescu’s claims regardless 

of the nature-of-claim code or amount claimed. Nor does 

Ms. Tanasescu’s allegation that she was improperly served 

with notice of docketing by this court have any relation to 

the Claims Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear her claims. 

III. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 21-2117 Document: 14 Page: 5 Filed: 12/07/2021