NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

VERLENE L. PARKER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2010-5139 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in case No.10-CV-73, Judge Marian Blank Horn. 

__________________________ 

Decided: November 5, 2010 

__________________________ 

VERLENE L. PARKER, of Flint, Michigan, pro se. 

LANE N. MCFADDEN, Attorney, Appellate Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States 

Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendantappellee. With him on the brief was IGANACIA S. MORENO, 

Assistant Attorney General. 

__________________________ 

Before GAJARSA, LINN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 
PARKER v. US 2

PER CURIAM. 

Verlene L. Parker (“Parker”) appeals from a final decision of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing her 

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Parker v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 159 (2010). For the 

reasons discussed below, this court affirms. 

BACKGROUND

Parker filed suit against the United States alleging a 

taking of her property and requesting compensation. In 

her pleadings, Parker alleged that “[i]n April 2005, [she] 

vacated her premises for government purposes . . . . due to 

a dispute by multiple agents, over the contents in her 

home and the contents on the land.” Further, “the agents 

set into motion destructive forces that directly removed 

personal property from the premises, which eventually 

[led] to the [loss] of the entire property, both real and 

personal.” In response “to an order from governing authority via telecommunications instrumentality for [her] 

to leave,” she left her property and claims to have suffered 

a constitutional taking “according to Mich. Statute 213.1, 

Note 8.” Parker seeks $2,175,285.10 in compensation. 

After a careful review and liberal construction of 

Parker’s filings, the Court of Federal Claims granted the 

government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction 

and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. Parker, 93 Fed. Cl. at 162. Specifically, the 

court found Parker asserted no “factual allegation or 

substantiating information as to what actions were taken 

by a federal official that resulted in the alleged taking of 

her property.” Id. at 163. Because Parker failed to allege 

a claim within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal 

Claims, the court dismissed her complaint. Id.
3 PARKER v. US

Parker filed a motion for reconsideration, suggesting 

that her pleadings may have been tampered with in the 

mail and requesting oral argument. The court denied 

Parker’s motion, finding that she failed to identify any 

“federal statute, actual federal agency or federal employee 

as responsible” for the alleged taking of her property and 

that oral argument was unnecessary in light of her having 

filed “approximately 200 pages” in presenting her case. 

See Parker v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 653, 657 (2010). 

Parker filed her notice of appeal that same day and this 

court has jurisdiction over her appeal pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). 

DISCUSSION

Whether the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed Parker’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 

are both questions of law this court reviews de novo. 

Boyle v. United States, 200 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 

2000). In reviewing the dismissal, we must accept all 

well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all 

reasonable inferences in Parker’s favor. Id. The Tucker 

Act vests the Court of Federal Claims with exclusive 

jurisdiction over takings claims against the federal government that seek more than $10,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1491. 

On appeal, Parker argues that the decision of the 

Court of Federal Claims is inconsistent with the law and 

facts and that the court improperly denied her request for 

oral argument. This court disagrees. The Court of Federal Claims not only considered the constitutional basis 

for Parker’s allegations and whether the complaint alleged a potential claim under the Tucker Act, but also her 

invocation of Michigan state law. Parker v. United States, 

93 Fed. Cl. 159, 162-63. While Parker did not identify 

any specific facts the court neglected to consider, her 
PARKER v. US 4

pleadings, even under a liberal construction, fail to specify 

any action by a federal official or agency that resulted in 

the taking of her property and that may have served as a 

basis for her suit against the United States. Finally, the 

court was well within its discretion to deny oral argument 

in light of Parker’s extensive filings. See Amado v. Microsoft Corp., 517 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The 

court properly dismissed Parker’s complaint for lack of 

jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted. 

For the above reasons, the decision of the Court of 

Federal Claims is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.