Elizabeth Peters v. United States

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ELIZABETH PETERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2021-1028
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:20-cv-00247-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.
______________________
Decided: February 10, 2021
______________________
ELIZABETH PETERS , Bloomington, IL, pro se.
M EEN G EU O H , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
D EBORAH ANN B YNUM, JEFFREY B. C LARK , ROBERT EDWARD
K IRSCHMAN , JR.
______________________
Before O’M ALLEY, M AYER , and TARANTO , Circuit Judges.
Case: 21-1028 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 02/10/2021

-- 1 of 4 --

PETERS v. UNITED STATES 2
PER C URIAM.
Elizabeth Peters filed suit in the United States Court
of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”), naming the United
States as a defendant and seeking $5.5 million in damages
for injuries allegedly caused by a judicial decision of a fed-
eral judge. The Claims Court dismissed the case for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. See Peters v. United States,
No. 20-247, 2020 WL 2124396 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 30, 2020). Be-
cause the Claims Court correctly determined that it did not
have jurisdiction over Peters’ claims, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2018, Peters filed suit against various defendants
who were involved with the foreclosure of her home. The
United States District Court for the Central District of Illi-
nois dismissed Peters’ claims for lack of personal jurisdic-
tion, improper venue, and failure to state a claim; the
Seventh Circuit affirmed. Peters v. Sloan, No. 18-cv-01236-
JES-JEH, 2018 WL 5621854 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 30, 2018), aff’d,
762 F. App’x 344 (7th Cir. 2019).
Peters subsequently filed suit against the United
States (“government”) in the Claims Court, alleging that
the presiding judge in the Central District of Illinois did
not “perform[] his duties impartially and diligently.”
S.A. 9. The government moved to dismiss Peters’ com-
plaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Claims
Court granted the government’s motion, reasoning that it
did not have jurisdiction to review a district court’s decision
or a suit that was not properly brought against the United
States. The Claims Court also found that it lacked juris-
diction because Peters failed to cite any laws or regulations
that were money-mandating.
Peters timely appeals. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
Case: 21-1028 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 02/10/2021

-- 2 of 4 --

PETERS v. UNITED STATES 3
D ISCUSSION
We review de novo the Claims Court’s decision to dis-
miss a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Brandt
v. United States, 710 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The
Claims Court has limited jurisdiction, consisting of “any
claim against the United States founded either upon the
Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of
an executive department, or upon any express or implied
contract with the United States, or for liquidated or
unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.”
28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
The Tucker Act “does not create a substantive cause of
action”; rather, it requires a plaintiff to 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) (citation omitted). For a source of substan-
tive law to be money-mandating, it must be “reasonably
amenable to the reading that it mandates a right of recov-
ery in damages” against the United States. United States
v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 472–73
(2003).
Peters argues that the Claims Court erred in dismiss-
ing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
She points us to the following statutory and regulatory pro-
visions as possible sources of jurisdiction: (1) 41 U.S.C.
§ 6503; (2) 12 C.F.R. § 37.2; and (3) 43 C.F.R. § 423.25.
None of these establish the Claims Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction over this case.
First, 41 U.S.C. § 6503 provides the United States with
the ability to recover damages when a contractor breaches
certain contract terms. As this is not a government con-
tract case and Peters is not the government, that statutory
provision does not apply here.
Second, 12 C.F.R. § 37.2 sets forth definitions associ-
ated with debt cancellation contracts and debt suspension
Case: 21-1028 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 02/10/2021

-- 3 of 4 --

PETERS v. UNITED STATES 4
agreements, none of which provides Peters with a money-
mandating source of substantive law.
Third, Peters’ citation to 43 C.F.R. § 423.25 is similarly
unavailing. That regulation provides law enforcement au-
thority at the Bureau of Reclamation facilities. It creates
no substantive law relevant to Peters’ case.
Given Peters’ failure to identify any substantive law
that creates a right for money damages, and the fact that
the Claims Court has no authority to review district court
decisions, the Claims Court correctly determined that it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Peters’ remaining arguments and
find them unpersuasive. For the reasons discussed above,
we affirm the Claims Court’s determination that it lacked
subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Peters’ case.1
AFFIRMED
1 On January 11, 2021, Peters filed with this court a
“Motion for Immediate Relief,” ECF No. 17. The motion
requests immediate monetary relief of $5.5 million pursu-
ant to Federal Circuit Rule 30(e). Federal Circuit Rule 30
is not an appropriate basis for relief in this appeal. Accord-
ingly, we deny Peters’ motion.
Case: 21-1028 Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 02/10/2021

-- 4 of 4 --