Simona Tanasescu, on Behalf of Herself and S.t., Aminor v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SIMONA TANASESCU, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF
AND S.T., A MINOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2021-2117
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:21-cv-01289-ZNS, Judge Zachary N. Somers.
______________________
Decided: December 7, 2021
______________________
SIMONA T ANASESCU, Tustin, CA, pro se.
MILES K ARSON, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA B URKE, MARTIN F. HOCKEY ,
J R.
______________________
Before L OURIE, MAYER, and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.
Case: 21-2117 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 12/07/2021

-- 1 of 5 --

TANASESCU v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Simona Tanasescu appeals from a decision of the Court
of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing her breach
of contract claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
Tanasescu v. United States, No. 21-1289 C, 2021 WL
2010295 (Fed. Cl. May 19, 2021). Because the Claims
Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate claims asking the
Claims Court to review the decisions of other federal
courts, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In her complaint before the Claims Court, Ms. Ta-
nasescu asserts that the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, United States Bank-
ruptcy Court for the Central District of California, and the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit failed
to correctly apply the law in three cases involving Ms. Ta-
nasescu. She asserts that this failure is a breach of an im-
plied contract between herself and the Department of
Justice (“DOJ”).
The Claims Court dismissed Ms. Tanasescu’s com-
plaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Tanasescu,
2021 WL 2010295, at *1. The court found that Ms. Ta-
nasescu’s complaint asked it to review various decisions of
other federal courts—something that the Claims Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction to do. Id. at *2.
Ms. Tanasescu appeals the Claims Court’s dismissal of
her case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have
jurisdiction to review the Claims Court’s final decision un-
der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
II. D ISCUSSION
On appeal, Ms. Tanasescu argues that the Claims
Court improperly dismissed her complaint for lack of sub-
ject matter jurisdiction. She asserts that the Claims Court
made both substantive and procedural errors. Ms.
Case: 21-2117 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 12/07/2021

-- 2 of 5 --

TANASESCU v. US 3
Tanasescu asserts that the Claims Court substantively
erred by ignoring the allegedly contractual nature of her
claims. She identifies two purported procedural errors un-
derlying the Claims Court’s decision and one purported
procedural error by this court. First, she asserts that the
Claims Court changed the “Nature-of-Suit Code” in the
case cover sheet from 114 (“Contract – Service – (CDA)”) to
528 (“Miscellaneous – Other”) without notifying her. Sec-
ond, she asserts that the Claims Court changed the
“Amount Claimed” in the case cover sheet from an esti-
mated $320,000,000 to $1,000,000, again, without notify-
ing her. Finally, Ms. Tanasescu asserts that she was never
served with a Notice of Docketing of her appeal before this
court.
This court reviews Claims Court decisions to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction de novo. Campbell v. United States,
932 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Subject matter juris-
diction is a threshold issue that courts must consider before
they consider the merits of a claim. Steel Co. v. Citizens for
a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998). As Ms. Ta-
nasescu is a pro se plaintiff, her pleadings are liberally con-
strued. But that does not alleviate her burden to
demonstrate that the Claims Court has jurisdiction. See
Beltran v. Shinseki, 447 F. App’x 208, 209 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Ms. Tanasescu still bears the burden of proving subject
matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See
Freeman v. United States, 875 F.3d 623, 628 (Fed. Cir.
2017).
The Claims Court’s jurisdiction, if any, over Ms. Ta-
nasescu’s case arises under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a). The Tucker Act gives the Claims Court “juris-
diction to render judgment upon any claim against the
United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any
Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive depart-
ment, or upon any express or implied contract with the
United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in
cases not sounding in tort.” Id. The Tucker Act is “a
Case: 21-2117 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 12/07/2021

-- 3 of 5 --

TANASESCU v. US 4
jurisdictional statute; it does not create any substantive
right enforceable against the United States for money dam-
ages.” United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976).
Thus, “a plaintiff must identify a separate source of sub-
stantive law that creates the right to money damages.”
Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc).
Ms. Tanasescu seems to argue that the separate source
of substantive law in this case is the Contract Disputes Act
of 1978, 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109. Ms. Tanasescu asserts
that she had an implied contract with the DOJ and alleges
that the DOJ breached this contract when the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of
California, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided
various motions and cases in ways adverse to Ms. Ta-
nasescu’s interests.
At its core, Ms. Tanasescu’s complaint asks the Claims
Court to review decisions of other federal courts. The al-
leged errors in those decisions form the “breach” in her
“breach of implied contract” claims. The Claims Court does
not have subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions
of other federal courts. Straw v. United States, 4 F.4th
1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (holding that the Claims Court
does not have jurisdiction to review district court deci-
sions); Allustiarte v. United States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1352
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the “proper forum for appel-
lants’ challenges to the bankruptcy trustees’ actions [which
were approved by the bankruptcy court] . . . lies in the
Ninth Circuit, not the Court of Federal Claims”). Creative
claiming cannot endow the Claims Court with jurisdiction
to review the decisions of other federal courts. See Straw,
4 F.4th at 1360–61 (affirming the Claims Court’s decision
that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a
Fifth Amendment takings claim in which the alleged tak-
ing was effected when a district court dismissed a tort
claim).
Case: 21-2117 Document: 14 Page: 4 Filed: 12/07/2021

-- 4 of 5 --

TANASESCU v. US 5
The purported procedural errors identified by Ms. Ta-
nasescu do not change our analysis. The nature-of-claim
code and the amount claimed played no role in the Claims
Court’s decision, which was based on the content of Ms. Ta-
nasescu’s complaint. The Claims Court does not have ju-
risdiction to adjudicate Ms. Tanasescu’s claims regardless
of the nature-of-claim code or amount claimed. Nor does
Ms. Tanasescu’s allegation that she was improperly served
with notice of docketing by this court have any relation to
the Claims Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear her claims.
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 21-2117 Document: 14 Page: 5 Filed: 12/07/2021

-- 5 of 5 --