Court Opinion

ID: 9410062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-20 13:01:03.238404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:56.644919
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1088   Document: 25     Page: 1   Filed: 07/12/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                    LESA J. WERME,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                   UNITED STATES,
                   Defendant-Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2023-1088
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:22-cv-00422-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: July 12, 2023
                 ______________________

    LESA WERME, Holland, MI, pro se.

     DANIEL FALKNOR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM JAMES GRIMALDI, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________

     Before HUGHES, LINN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
Case: 23-1088    Document: 25      Page: 2    Filed: 07/12/2023

 2                                               WERME   v. US

        Ms. Lesa Werme filed suit in the United States
 Court of Federal Claims alleging that a federal district
 court judge effectuated a judicial taking of Ms. Werme’s
 property when the judge did not recuse herself from a law-
 suit by Ms. Werme alleging that a bank related to the fore-
 closure of Ms. Werme’s home committed various torts. The
 Court of Federal Claims found that it lacked subject matter
 jurisdiction to consider Ms. Werme’s allegations and dis-
 missed the case. We affirm the dismissal.
                               I
        Ms. Werme’s property was foreclosed in 2014.
 Ms. Werme thereafter filed a lawsuit challenging the fore-
 closure (the foreclosure case) as well as another lawsuit—
 separate from the foreclosure case—alleging various torts
 against a bank (the torts case). In the foreclosure case, the
 foreclosure of Ms. Werme’s property was upheld. See
 Werme v. Huntington Nat’l Bank, No. 1:16-CV-479, 2016
 WL 4578006, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 2, 2016) (Werme I).
        The torts case was heard by a different federal judge.
 Compare Werme I, 2016 WL 4578006, at *1, with Werme v.
 Mortg. Ctr., LLC, No. 1:15-CV-130, 2018 WL 3458567, at
 *1 (W.D. Mich. July 6, 2018) (Werme II). The district court
 judge in the torts case resolved the claims in the bank’s fa-
 vor in part because the foreclosure had been upheld in the
 foreclosure case. Werme II, 2018 WL 3458567, at *3. The
 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit af-
 firmed the judgment in the torts case. See Werme v. Mortg.
 Ctr., LLC, 764 F. App’x 521 (6th Cir. March 20, 2019).
        Ms. Werme then filed a complaint in the Court of
 Federal Claims alleging that the district court judge in the
 torts case had a financial conflict of interest and effectu-
 ated a judicial taking of her property by failing to recuse
 herself from the case. The Court of Federal Claims dis-
 missed Ms. Werme’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction be-
 cause to determine whether a judicial taking occurred, the
 court found that it would have to review whether the dis-
 trict court judge should have recused herself. The trial
Case: 23-1088     Document: 25      Page: 3    Filed: 07/12/2023

 WERME   v. US                                                3

 court declined to do so, holding that it lacked jurisdiction
 to scrutinize the actions of another tribunal. Accordingly,
 the trial court found that it lacked jurisdiction over
 Ms. Werme’s complaint. Ms. Werme appeals. We have ju-
 risdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
                               II
        We review de novo a Court of Federal Claims’ deci-
 sion dismissing a case for lack of subject matter jurisdic-
 tion. Diversified Grp. Inc. v. United States, 841 F.3d 975,
 980 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The plaintiff bears the burden of es-
 tablishing subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance
 of the evidence. Id. Although we give pro se plaintiffs more
 latitude in their pleadings than a party represented by
 counsel, they must still meet jurisdictional requirements.
 Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed.
 Cir. 1987).
         “[T]he Court of Federal Claims does not have juris-
 diction to review the decisions of district courts or the
 clerks of district courts relating to proceedings before those
 courts.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir.
 1994). In the context of a judicial takings claim, neither we
 nor the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to review
 the decision of a United States district court if “resolution
 of [a plaintiff’s] judicial takings claim depends on the Court
 of Federal Claims’ finding that the [district court’s] deci-
 sion was in error.” Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States, 862
 F.3d 1370, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
        That is the situation we have here. Resolution of
 Ms. Werme’s judicial takings claim turns on whether the
 district court judge in the torts case had a financial conflict
 of interest. See Appellant’s Br. 6; see also S.A. 3. Thus,
 Ms. Werme necessarily asks us to consider whether the dis-
 trict court judge should have recused herself based on an
 alleged financial interest in one of the parties and if the
 failure to recuse caused Ms. Werme to be deprived of her
 property without just compensation. The Court of Federal
 Claims was correct to hold that it lacked jurisdiction to
Case: 23-1088     Document: 25      Page: 4   Filed: 07/12/2023

 4                                                WERME   v. US

 review such issues. See Joshua, 17 F.3d at 380; Petro-Hunt,
 862 F.3d at 1386; Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United
 States, 782 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Permitting
 parties aggrieved by the decisions of Article III tribunals to
 challenge the merits of those decisions in the Court of Fed-
 eral Claims would circumvent the statutorily defined ap-
 pellate process and severely undercut the orderly
 resolution of claims.”). The Court of Federal Claims there-
 fore properly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. 1
                              III
         We have considered Ms. Werme’s remaining argu-
 ments and find them unpersuasive and affirm the dismis-
 sal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
                         AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 No costs.

     1    Ms. Werme also argues that the federal district
 court judge in the torts case had a conflict of interest be-
 cause she owned stock in a company called General Dy-
 namics and the individual who granted Ms. Werme title to
 the property at issue was potentially a member of a class
 action suit involving General Dynamics in 1994. Appel-
 lant’s Br. 5–6. This argument is made for the first time on
 appeal (compare Appellant’s Br. 5–6, with S.A. 20–24) and
 is therefore forfeited. Caterpillar Inc. v. Sturman Indus.,
 Inc., 387 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Regardless, we
 fail to see a relevant connection between the foreclosure of
 Ms. Werme’s property and the class action lawsuit involv-
 ing General Dynamics.