Court Opinion

ID: 9388697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 15:00:41.974273+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:21.934947
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1333    Document: 24     Page: 1   Filed: 04/21/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

  DINEEN CHERYLANN ETIENNE, on behalf of her-
        self and Daequan Mykal Samuels,
                 Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2023-1333
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:22-cv-01625-EDK, Chief Judge Elaine Kaplan.
                  ______________________

                      ON MOTION
                  ______________________

 PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
     After the filing of Dineen Cherylann Etienne’s opening
 brief, the United States moves to summarily affirm the
 judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dis-
 missing Ms. Etienne’s complaint. For the following rea-
 sons, we grant the motion.
Case: 23-1333    Document: 24     Page: 2    Filed: 04/21/2023

 2                                             ETIENNE   v. US

      Ms. Etienne brought a sprawling complaint alleging
 that the federal government and a host of state, local, and
 private entities and individuals conspired to oppress,
 threaten, and intimidate her and her son. She asserted vi-
 olations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses
 of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985,
 the Patriot Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
 Organizations Act (RICO). On December 5, 2022, the
 Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s motion
 to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court also rejected
 Ms. Etienne’s allegations that the Clerk of that court had
 altered and redacted information from her amended com-
 plaint. After the Court of Federal Claims denied Ms.
 Etienne’s motion for reconsideration, she filed this appeal.
     We agree that summary affirmance is appropriate here
 because there is “no substantial question regarding the
 outcome” of Ms. Etienne’s appeal. Joshua v. United States,
 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). The
 Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that it could
 only review claims against the United States. United
 States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941). The court
 was also clearly correct that none of the sources of law Ms.
 Etienne identified in the complaint created a right to
 money damages against the United States that could give
 the court jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.
 § 1491(a)(1). See LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025,
 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that the Due Process and
 Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment
 are not money mandating); Shelden v. United States, 742
 F. App’x 496, 501–02 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (no jurisdiction over
 claims for damages under RICO or §§ 1983 and 1985). As
 for Ms. Etienne’s claims of defamation, torture, conspiracy,
 and stalking, the Court of Federal Claims correctly found
 that those claims sound in tort, and thus are outside of its
 jurisdiction. See Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623
 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Lastly, Ms. Etienne’s
 allegations of fraud on the court are wholly without merit.
Case: 23-1333      Document: 24   Page: 3     Filed: 04/21/2023

 ETIENNE   v. US                                            3

 The amended complaint is stamped “Received – USCFC
 NOV 10 2022.” Review of its contents reveals no signs of
 alteration or redaction, and Ms. Etienne fails to provide
 any detail of how her complaint was allegedly tampered
 with.
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted.
 The judgment is summarily affirmed.
    (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                   FOR THE COURT

 April 21, 2023                    /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
     Date                           Peter R. Marksteiner
                                    Clerk of Court