Court Opinion

ID: 9910375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 16:01:26.307089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:30.198768
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2052    Document: 22      Page: 1    Filed: 12/15/2023

            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                     IRINA COLLIER,
                     Plaintiff-Appellant

                              v.

                     UNITED STATES,
                     Defendant-Appellee
                   ______________________

                         2023-2052
                   ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:23-cv-00654-RAH, Judge Richard A. Hertling.
                  ______________________

                       ON MOTION
                   ______________________

 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
     The United States moves to summarily affirm the judg-
 ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismiss-
 ing Irina Collier’s complaint. Ms. Collier responds and files
 several motions for various relief, including consolidation
 of this case with Appeal No. 2023-2420.
     Ms. Collier brought a sprawling complaint in the Court
 of Federal Claims that was liberally construed as alleging
Case: 23-2052     Document: 22      Page: 2    Filed: 12/15/2023

 2                                                COLLIER v. US

 claims that “(1) government agencies obstructed justice in
 connection with the attempted insurrection on January 6,
 2021; (2) the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
 Circuit mishandled one of [Ms. Collier]’s cases; (3) a domes-
 tic-violence restraining order has been violated; (4) the U.S.
 Postal Service [ ] committed fraud by mishandling her
 mailed court filings; (5) [Ms. Collier]’s alleged misdiagnosis
 with mental-health disorders was recorded in her medical
 charts and police records and has affected her ability to
 travel and receive medical and emergency care; (6) [Ms.
 Collier] has suffered police brutality; (7) [Ms. Collier]’s son
 has been trafficked, abused, and medically neglected; (8)
 the plaintiff was misled into moving into a mental-health
 facility receiving government funding; (9) Stanford Univer-
 sity and the University of California are undermining the
 government; and (10) numerous actors have violated the
 Privacy Act, the Uniting and Strengthening America by
 Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Ob-
 struct Terrorism Act (“Patriot Act”), and the Racketeer In-
 fluenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).” Collier
 v. United States, No. 23-654, slip op. at 1–2 (Fed. Cl. May
 9, 2023).
     On May 9, 2023, the Court of Federal Claims issued an
 order granting Ms. Collier’s motion for leave to proceed in
 forma pauperis and sua sponte dismissing the complaint
 under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the Court of Federal
 Claims because Ms. Collier “had not identified a valid basis
 for Tucker Act jurisdiction.” ECF No. 1-2 at 4. Noting that
 Ms. Collier “has filed numerous claims and appeals” in the
 federal courts that were recently “dismissed as frivolous
 and duplicative of earlier claims,” the court concluded that
 it would not be in the interest of justice to transfer to an-
 other court under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Id. at 6. And it certi-
 fied under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not
 be taken in good faith. Id. Ms. Collier nevertheless ap-
 pealed.
Case: 23-2052    Document: 22      Page: 3    Filed: 12/15/2023

 COLLIER v. US                                              3

      Ms. Collier’s brief and opposition to the government’s
 motion fail to make any cogent, non-frivolous argument as
 to why the Court of Federal Claims’ determination to dis-
 miss her complaint was incorrect. Contrary to her argu-
 ment, the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to
 consider habeas claims. See Ledford v. United States, 297
 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The trial court was also
 clearly correct in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to ad-
 dress Ms. Collier’s various grievances regarding her prior
 civil actions, Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367,
 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and that her Privacy Act, Patriot Act,
 RICO, fraud, and other criminal or tort claims are clearly
 outside the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Federal
 Claims under the Tucker Act. See Bush v. United States,
 627 F. App’x 928, 930 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Privacy Act); Clark
 v. United States, 116 F. App’x 278, 279–80 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
 (Patriot Act); Shelden v. United States, 742 F. App’x 496,
 501–02 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (RICO); Jones v. United States, 440
 F. App’x 916, 918 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (review of other courts);
 Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
 (fraud). We have considered Ms. Collier’s remaining argu-
 ments and conclude that they are without merit. Thus, we
 agree with the government that summary disposition is ap-
 propriate here because there is no “substantial question re-
 garding the outcome” of the appeal. Joshua v. United
 States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted.
 The judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims
 is summarily affirmed.
     (2) All other pending motions are denied.
Case: 23-2052    Document: 22     Page: 4      Filed: 12/15/2023

 4                                               COLLIER v. US

     (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                               FOR THE COURT

 December 15, 2023
      Date