Court Opinion

ID: 9957761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 13:00:59.962576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:37.506771
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1955   Document: 23     Page: 1    Filed: 04/05/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                   MICHELE GRAY,
                   Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                   UNITED STATES,
                   Defendant-Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2023-1955
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:23-cv-00631-CNL, Judge Carolyn N. Lerner.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: April 5, 2024
                 ______________________

    MICHELE GRAY, Rensselaer, NY, pro se.

     BRENDAN DAVID JORDAN, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
 sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE,
 PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________

   Before PROST, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1955    Document: 23      Page: 2    Filed: 04/05/2024

 2                                                 GRAY v. US

 PER CURIAM.
     Michele R. Gray has appealed from the United States
 Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of her complaint for lack
 of subject-matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons,
 we affirm.
     Ms. Gray filed a complaint against the federal govern-
 ment in the Court of Federal Claims asserting subject-mat-
 ter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.
 § 1491(a)(1). S.A. 4–5. 1 The complaint alleged, citing 11
 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), (4), that Ms. Gray’s Summerville, South
 Carolina property was taken without good cause pursuant
 to bankruptcy proceedings. S.A. 7. Ms. Gray listed the
 “monetary damages and other relief” sought as “(1) equita-
 ble relief payment; 26 CFR § 1.6015-4 and (2) Administra-
 tive Procedure Act (APA) breach under an implied-in-fact
 contract. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559.” S.A. 6.
     The Court of Federal Claims concluded that it lacked
 jurisdiction over Ms. Gray’s complaint. First, the court
 noted that “[t]his is the second time [Ms. Gray] has filed a
 complaint before the Court of Federal Claims concerning
 the Summerville property.” S.A. 1. Next, the court ex-
 plained that “[t]he Court of Federal Claims does not have
 jurisdiction over cases sounding in bankruptcy.” Id. (citing
 Allustiarte v. United States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir.
 2001)). Finally, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdic-
 tion over Ms. Gray’s claims in equity and under the APA,
 the facts of which did not implicate actions by, or contracts
 with, the United States in any event. S.A. 1–2.
     In addition to dismissing the complaint, the Court of
 Federal Claims entered an anti-filing order “[i]n light of
 Ms. Gray’s repeated filing of frivolous complaints and other
 baseless pleadings.” S.A. 2 (“[S]ee Gray v. United States,

     1   “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix submit-
 ted with the government’s informal brief.
Case: 23-1955    Document: 23      Page: 3    Filed: 04/05/2024

 GRAY v. US                                                 3

 No. 22-749 (Fed. Cl. Jul. 13, 2022) (dismissed for lack of
 jurisdiction per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Gray v. United States,
 No. 22-541 (Fed. Cl. Sep[t]. 8, 2022) (dismissed for lack of
 subject matter jurisdiction); Gray v. United States, No. 22-
 717 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 19, 2022) (same); Gray v. United States,
 No. 22-848 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 3, 2022) (same).”). Pursuant to
 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court of Federal Claims certi-
 fied that any appeal from its order would not be taken in
 good faith. S.A. 3.
     Ms. Gray timely appealed, and this court has jurisdic-
 tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
     We review the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for
 lack of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Waltner v.
 United States, 679 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
     The Court of Federal Claims is a federal tribunal of
 limited jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491. In the Tucker
 Act, Congress waived sovereign immunity for certain ac-
 tions for monetary relief against the United States. See id.
 Plaintiffs who pursue claims under the Tucker Act “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). Here, while Ms. Gray
 named the United States as the defendant, the Court of
 Federal Claims was correct in concluding “the facts pleaded
 do not implicate the federal government.” S.A. 2. Addi-
 tionally, the Court of Federal Claims does not have juris-
 diction to review bankruptcy-related claims under 11
 U.S.C. § 362, nor does it have jurisdiction over Ms. Gray’s
 claims for equitable relief or arising under the APA.
 Blodgett v. United States, 792 F. App’x 921, 925 (Fed. Cir.
 2019) (nonprecedential) (“[D]istrict courts—and not the
 Claims Court—have ‘original and exclusive jurisdiction of
 all cases under title 11.’” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a)));
 Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
 (“The Tucker Act does not provide independent jurisdiction
 over such claims for equitable relief.”); Martinez v. United
Case: 23-1955    Document: 23     Page: 4   Filed: 04/05/2024

 4                                               GRAY v. US

 States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[T]he Court
 of Federal Claims lacks APA jurisdiction.”).
      We have considered Ms. Gray’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
 affirm.
                       AFFIRMED
                          COSTS
 No Costs.