NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-5076 

MARTI ADDAMS-MORE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

Marti Addams-More, of Beverly Hills, California, pro se. 

Courtney E. Sheehan, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. With her 

on the brief were Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. 

Davidson, Director, and Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Assistant Director. 

Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims 

Judge Emily C. Hewitt 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-5076 

MARTI ADDAMS-MORE, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 07-649C, 

Judge Emily C. Hewitt. 

_______________________ 

DECIDED: October 9, 2008 

_______________________ 

Before RADER, PLAGER and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Marti Addams-More seeks review of the judgment of the United States Court of 

Federal Claims that dismissed her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For 

the reasons set forth below, we affirm. 

 Ms. Addams-More filed a complaint against the United States in the Court of 

Federal Claims (“trial court”) alleging that defendant breached its “fiduciary duties of the 

trustee obligation” with regard to the disbursement of Social Security funds. In 
response to defendant’s argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear her 

claims, Ms. Addams-More stated: 

“Whether U.S. Court of Claims has jurisdiction via [28 U.S.C. § ] 1491 money 

damages, over $10,000; trust common law jurisdictional standing of U.S. as 

[Social Security Act] Trustee, under federal statutes, regulations permitting a 

certain sum, and whether said agencies function as instrumentality of the federal 

government-regulatory taking.” 

Addams-More v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 312, 314 (Ct. Cl. 2008) (alterations in 

original) (quoting Pl.’s Resp.). The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss Ms. 

Addams-More’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it could not 

adjudicate claims arising under the Social Security Act. Id. at 315. The trial court also 

held that it is not “in the interest of justice” to transfer the complaint to another 

jurisdiction because it was unable to discern the exact nature of plaintiff’s claims 

contained in her complaint.1

 Id. 

On appeal, Ms. Addams-More argues that the U.S. is a trustee of the Social 

Security assets and that the systemic mismanagement and waste of the trust assets by 

the U.S. constitutes a breach of its fiduciary duty owed to Appellant under the Social 

Security Act. Appellant’s Br. at 5-6. Ms. Addams-More further argues that her negative 

prognosis, a vitamin deficiency,2 constitutes a Fifth Amendment taking of her 

productivity by the Social Security Administration, and she asserts she made a claim for 

 1

 Although Ms. Addams-More did not request a transfer of her case to 

another jurisdiction, the Court of Federal Claims determined whether such transfer was 

“in the interest of justice.” 

2

 In her response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Ms. Addams-More 

alleges that her “vitamin deficiency symptoms were misdetermined [sic]; engendering a 

negative profile that limited her income.” Addams-More v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 

312, 314 (Ct. Cl. 2008). 

2008-5076 2
reimbursement of $12,000 which was never adjudicated.3

 Id. at 4, 8-9, 12. Overall, Ms. 

Addams-More seeks adjudication of her claim for Social Security benefits and 

adjudication of the withholding of alleged overpayments of those benefits. Id. at 12. 

This court reviews de novo the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Addams-More’s 

complaint for lack of jurisdiction. See Samish Indian Nation v. United States, 419 F.3d 

1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In conducting its review, this court assumes that the facts 

pled by Ms. Addams-More are true. See id. at 1364. 

 The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction. The Tucker Act 

gives the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction 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). This court has explained that “because the Tucker Act itself does not create 

a substantive cause of action, ‘in order to come within the jurisdictional reach and the 

waiver of the Tucker Act, 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). Therefore, the ability of the Court of Federal Claims to hear 

Ms. Addams-More’s case depends on whether she asserts a substantive claim to 

money damages as defined in the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). 

 3

 Ms. Addams-More also argues that the Court of Federal Claims has 

jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (b)(1), 28 U.S.C. § 2501, and 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 

However, these are procedural statutes; thus they do not give the Appellant a 

substantive cause of action upon which the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction. 

Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 

2008-5076 3
2008-5076 4

Ms. Addams-More does not assert any substantive claims upon which the Court 

of Federal Claims has jurisdiction. First, the Court of Federal Claims does not have 

jurisdiction to review the alleged systemic mismanagement and waste of trust assets by 

the Social Security Administration. Indeed, the Court of Federal Claims “lacks the 

general federal question jurisdiction of the district courts, which would allow it to review 

[an] agency’s actions and to grant relief pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act.” 

Crocker v. United States, 125 F.3d 1475, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

The Court of Federal Claims similarly lacks jurisdiction over Ms. Addams-More’s 

Fifth Amendment regulatory taking claim because Appellant is alleging a violation of her 

constitutional rights due to a denial of social security benefits.4 See Marcus v. United 

States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[W]e hold that the Claims Court has no 

jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (a)(1) (1988), over claims to social 

security benefits, even considering appellant’s assertions that he is entitled to relief 

under the Constitution.”); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 756-767 (1975) (42 

U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and (h) (1982) require that action for social security benefits must be 

brought in district court). Accordingly, the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to 

hear Ms. Addams-More’s claims. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the Court of Federal Claims. 

No costs. 

 4

 Appellee argues that Ms. Addams-More’s Fifth Amendment regulatory 

taking claim is not properly before this Court because Appellant allegedly raised the 

claim in response to the Government’s motion to dismiss and did not amend her 

complaint to incorporate this alternative theory. It is unclear from the record when Ms. 

Addams-More raised this argument and therefore this Court assumes the issue was 

properly raised.