LAWSON v. USA

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 25-2097C
Filed: January 8, 2026
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
ANGELIINA LYNN LAWSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
ORDER
The plaintiff, Angelina Lynn Lawson, proceeding pro se, filed this action on December 9,
2025; the case was docketed on December 10, 2025. The plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis was granted on December 11, 2025. On that same day, the plaintiff was
ordered to show cause as to why her complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice for
lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff responded to the order to show cause on January 6, 2026.
Jurisdiction is a threshold matter that a court must resolve before it addresses the merits
of a case. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). Before considering
the merits of a plaintiff’s claims, a court must first determine that it has jurisdiction to hear the
case. See, e.g., St. Bernard Parish Gov’t v. United States, 916 F.3d 987, 992-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
(holding a court has a responsibility to ensure that it has jurisdiction over any claims asserted).
A court may dismiss a complaint on its own initiative if “the pleadings sufficiently evince a basis
for that action.” Anaheim Gardens v. United States, 444 F.3d 1309, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see
also St. Bernard Parish Gov’t, 916 F.3d at 992-93 (a “court must address jurisdictional issues,
even sua sponte, whenever those issues come to the court’s attention, whether raised by a party
or not, and even if the parties affirmatively urge the court to exercise jurisdiction over the case”
(citing Foster v. Chatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737, 1745 (2016))).
The plaintiff is proceeding pro se. As a result, her pleadings are entitled to a more liberal
construction than they would be given if prepared by a lawyer. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520-21 (1972). Giving a pro se litigant’s pleadings a liberal construction does not divest the
pro se plaintiff of the responsibility of demonstrating that the complaint satisfies the
jurisdictional requirements that limit the types of claims the Court of Federal Claims may
entertain. See Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Liberally construed, the plaintiff’s complaint appears to allege that the plaintiff was
involved in a child-custody dispute in Kansas state court. Apparently dissatisfied with the
outcome of that litigation, she has attempted to relitigate the child-custody issues in federal
Case 1:25-cv-02097-RAH Document 7 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 4

2
district court in Kansas. She alleges that despite her effort to move the dispute to federal court,
the child-custody proceeding has continued in state court.
The federal district court in Kansas has repeatedly rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to
remove the child-custody dispute to federal court. The plaintiff has appealed some of those
adverse orders to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which hears appeals
from the federal district court in Kansas. The plaintiff has also filed multiple emergency motions
in the Tenth Circuit seeking “protective relief,” “fraud review,” and “[Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”)] enforcement.” In her complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the Tenth
Circuit has declined to rule on her appeals and emergency motions. She alleges that the Tenth
Circuit’s failure to act has deprived her of her civil rights and constitutes a taking under the fifth
amendment.
Due to the facial jurisdictional shortcomings of the complaint, the plaintiff was ordered to
show cause as to why her complaint should not be dismissed. The order to show cause directed
the plaintiff to explain why her complaint is not merely seeking a review of the inaction of the
Tenth Circuit and is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.
In her response to the order to show cause, the plaintiff clarified that she is not seeking
review of the Tenth Circuit’s failure to act. Instead, she argues that the Tenth Circuit’s alleged
inaction constituted a fifth amendment taking by depriving her of access to a federal legal forum.
Additionally, she claims the Tenth Circuit’s alleged inaction allowed Kansas state actors to
interfere with her property interest, her “right of access to a federal forum,” and her “protected
parental liberty” without just compensation.
Treating the plaintiff’s allegations as true, Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States,
659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011), none falls within the limited jurisdiction of the Court of
Federal Claims.
The jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims is established by the Tucker Act,
28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), which provides:
The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction 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 department, or upon any express or
implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or
unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Tucker Act to waive the sovereign immunity of
the federal government to allow jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims if a claim is: “(1)
founded on an express or implied contract with the United States, (2) seeking a refund from a
prior payment made to the [United States], or (3) based on federal constitutional, statutory, or
regulatory law mandating compensation by the federal government for damages sustained,”
unless arising from a tort. Curie v. United States, 163 Fed. Cl. 791, 799 (2022) (citing, inter alia,
United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 289-90 (2009)). “Not every claim invoking the
Constitution, a federal statute, or a regulation is cognizable under the Tucker Act. The claim
must be one for money damages against the United States . . . .” United States v. Mitchell,
Case 1:25-cv-02097-RAH Document 7 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 4

3
463 U.S. 206, 216 (1983). The Tucker Act does not provide jurisdiction over claims against any
party other than the federal government. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941).
To invoke the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims for a violation of a
statutory, regulatory, or constitutional provision, that provision must be money-mandating,
meaning it “‘can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for
the damage sustained.’” United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400 (1976) (quoting Eastport S.
S. Corp. v. United States, 372 F.2d 1002, 1009 (Ct. Cl. 1967)). This money-mandating source of
law must be distinct from the Tucker Act itself. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. at 290.
The plaintiff’s complaint can only fall within the court’s jurisdiction if she pleads a claim
based on a federal statutory, regulatory, or constitutional provision that mandates compensation
and does not sound in tort. The plaintiff argues that her claim “arises solely under the [t]akings
[c]lause of the [f]ifth [a]mendment,” for which she seeks compensation for “specific, identifiable
deprivations of property interest to federal inaction.”
A claim under the fifth amendment for damages arising from a taking of private property
would normally fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. The Fifth
Amendment provides that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just
compensation.” U.S. Const. amend. V, cl. 4. To establish a taking under the Fifth Amendment,
the plaintiff must allege that she has a cognizable property interest at the time of the alleged
taking and that “the government’s action amounted to a compensable taking of that interest.”
Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 708 F.3d 1340, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
The Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to “entertain a taking[s] claim that
requires the court to scrutinize the actions of another tribunal.” Innovair Aviation Ltd. v. United
States, 632 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (cleaned up). In general, the Court of Federal
Claims has no authority to review decisions of federal district courts or courts of
appeals. Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United States, 782 F.3d 1345, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Allustiarte v. United States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1352, (Fed. Cir. 2001). Under these authorities, the
Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff’s claim arising out of the inaction of the Tenth
Circuit.
To the extent the plaintiff alleges that the inaction by the Tenth Circuit “permitted state
actors to interfere with [p]laintiff’s property interests,” that claim is predicated on the actions of
state or local actors and therefore lies outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.
Sherwood, 312 U.S. at 588. It is not enough that the complaint names the United States as the
defendant, “but its allegations also must implicate the United States.” Hankins v. United States,
No. 21-2138 C, 2022 WL 128839, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 14, 2022) (citing May Co. v. United
States, 38 Fed. Cl. 414, 416 (1997)).
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint fails to allege any claim within the jurisdiction
of the Court of Federal Claims.
Before dismissing a complaint for lack of jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1631 requires the
court to consider whether to transfer the case to a federal court that could properly exercise
jurisdiction. Because the plaintiff has already sought and been denied relief in federal district
Case 1:25-cv-02097-RAH Document 7 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 4

4
court in Kansas, transfer to that court, in which venue appropriately lies, is not in the interest of
justice and is not appropriate.
Even construed liberally, the plaintiff’s complaint does not, on its face, plead any claim
over which the Court of Federal Claims can exercise jurisdiction. Accordingly, the complaint
must be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(h)(3) of the
Rules of the Court of Federal Claims. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly.
No costs are awarded. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from
this decision would not be taken in good faith.
It is so ORDERED.
s/ Richard A. Hertling
Richard A. Hertling
Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02097-RAH Document 7 Filed 01/08/26 Page 4 of 4