Court Opinion

ID: 9401837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 14:01:00.709708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:55.564345
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1538    Document: 13     Page: 1    Filed: 06/14/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                    MICHELE GRAY,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2023-1538
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:22-cv-00717-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.
                  ______________________

                      ON MOTION
                  ______________________

 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
     Michele Gray has appealed from the United States
 Court of Federal Claims’ judgment dismissing her com-
 plaint. She now moves for leave to proceed in forma pau-
 peris. For the following reasons, we summarily affirm.
     Ms. Gray filed two civil suits against Amazon.com, Inc.
 alleging that there was a manufacturing defect in toilet pa-
 per she purchased online. After both suits were dismissed
Case: 23-1538    Document: 13      Page: 2    Filed: 06/14/2023

 2                                                 GRAY   v. US

 in federal district court, Ms. Gray brought this suit in the
 Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the United States
 contributed to the negligence that resulted in her injury
 and violated the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 264
 “by allowing delivery into interstate commerce of biological
 product.” She asserted a right to damages under “FTCA,
 28 U.S.C. § 2671” and “U.S. Code § 2674,” “Title 42 US Code
 §§ 141, 144” and Section 1411 of Chapter 8 Article 14-A of
 the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. The Court of
 Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and certi-
 fied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal
 would not be taken in good faith.
     The Court of Federal Claims is a federal tribunal of
 limited jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1491. It may only review
 claims against the United States based on substantive law
 that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation
 by the Federal Government.” United States v. Navajo Na-
 tion, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) (citations omitted). Here, the
 Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that it did not
 have jurisdiction to review any of the claims raised in Ms.
 Gray’s complaint because those claims were not against the
 United States or were claims against the United States
 that were clearly outside the tribunal’s limited grant of ju-
 risdiction.
     As for Ms. Gray’s claims for contributory negligence in
 allowing Amazon to sell its product, the Court of Federal
 Claims properly held those claims, which sound “in tort,”
 to be outside the court’s jurisdiction. See Brown v. United
 States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Ms. Gray has
 also presented no cognizable basis to interpret 42 U.S.C.
 §§ 141, 264, 28 U.S.C. § 2671, or the New York Civil Prac-
 tice Rules as mandating compensation by the federal gov-
 ernment. Ms. Gray likewise cannot sue the United States
 in the Court of Federal Claims under the Federal Tort
 Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2674, because that Act “vests juris-
 diction over such claims exclusively in [federal] district
Case: 23-1538    Document: 13     Page: 3     Filed: 06/14/2023

 GRAY   v. US                                               3

 courts.” U.S. Marine, Inc. v. United States, 722 F.3d 1360,
 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
     We have considered Ms. Gray’s arguments in her infor-
 mal opening brief and do not find them to have any basis
 in law or fact. For these reasons, we conclude that the
 Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct in determining
 that it lacked jurisdiction over Ms. Gray’s complaint. We
 therefore affirm and do so by summary order. See Joshua
 v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding
 that summary disposition is appropriate when there is “no
 substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal”).
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The judgment of the United States Court of Federal
 Claims is summarily affirmed.
    (2) All pending motions are denied as moot.
    (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                       FOR THE COURT

 June 14, 2023                         /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
     Date                              Jarrett B. Perlow
                                       Acting Clerk of Court