Lisa Ann Deweese v. United States

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LISA ANN DEWEESE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1791
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-00014-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank
Horn.
______________________
Decided: December 6, 2024
______________________
LISA ANN DEWEESE, Albuquerque, NM, pro se.
NELSON KUAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented
by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, CORINNE
ANNE NIOSI.
______________________
Before PROST, BRYSON, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1791 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 12/06/2024

-- 1 of 5 --

DEWEESE v. US 2
PER CURIAM.
Pro se Appellant Lisa Ann Deweese appeals a
judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims
dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
This matter originates from child custody proceedings
in the State of New Mexico concerning allegations that Ms.
Deweese abused or neglected her child. See, e.g.,
SAppx2–4.1 On December 9, 2013, a New Mexico children’s
court division entered a stipulated judgment against Ms.
Deweese, which provided that the State of New Mexico
Children, Youth and Families Department (“CYFD”) would
retain custody of Ms. Deweese’s child and implement a
treatment plan for Ms. Deweese. Appx24–28.2
On January 2, 2024, Ms. Deweese filed a complaint
against the federal government in the United States Court
of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”), alleging breach of
multiple contracts, violation of due process rights, and
tortious acts based on facts relating to the New Mexico
child custody proceedings. SAppx2. The alleged contracts
undergirding Ms. Deweese’s breach of contract claims are
a signed mediation agreement and the treatment plan
provided by the New Mexico CYFD. SAppx3.
1 As used herein, “SAppx” refers to the supplemental
appendix accompanying Appellee’s Corrected Informal
Response Brief, which is docketed at Case No. 24-1794,
Doc. 19.
2 As used herein, “Appx” refers to the appendix
accompanying Appellant’s Informal Brief, which is
docketed at Case No. 24-1791, Doc. 14, and the cited pages
correspond to the page numbering as docketed at Doc. 14.
Case: 24-1791 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 12/06/2024

-- 2 of 5 --

DEWEESE v. US 3
On January 25, 2024, the government moved to
dismiss Ms. Deweese’s complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. SAppx6. The government argued lack of
jurisdiction because the alleged contracts are neither
money-mandating nor contracts with the federal
government, and the due process and tort claims asserted
by Ms. Deweese are not within the jurisdiction of the
Claims Court. SAppx6. The Claims Court agreed with the
government and dismissed the action without prejudice for
lack of jurisdiction. SAppx19.
Ms. Deweese timely appealed the dismissal. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
DISCUSSION
We review the Claims Court’s dismissal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Waltner v. United
States, 679 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Although “pro
se pleadings are to be liberally construed,” Durr v.
Nicholson, 400 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation
omitted), pro se plaintiffs must still establish the Claims
Court’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence,
Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir.
2002).3
The Claims Court is a court of limited jurisdiction.
Under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, the Claims Court
has jurisdiction over actions founded upon “any express or
implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated
or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” Id.
§ 1491(a)(1). The Tucker Act does not create a substantive
cause of action. Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167,
3 We summarize Ms. Deweese’s informal claims
liberally construing Ms. Deweese’s amended complaint.
SAppx2–19. Accordingly, the referenced “complaint” refers
to Ms. Deweese’s amended complaint, as filed on
January 2, 2024. SAppx2.
Case: 24-1791 Document: 43 Page: 3 Filed: 12/06/2024

-- 3 of 5 --

DEWEESE v. US 4
1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc in relevant part). Rather,
plaintiffs who pursue claims under the Tucker Act must
also “identify a separate source of substantive law that
creates the right to money damages.” Id.
This court has identified three types of monetary
claims that fall within the Claims Court’s jurisdiction: (1)
claims alleging a contract between the plaintiff and the
government, (2) claims where the plaintiff has paid money
to the government and seeks a full or partial refund of that
money, and (3) claims where the plaintiff has not paid any
money but asserts he is nevertheless entitled to a payment
from the treasury. Ontario Power Generation, Inc. v.
United States, 369 F.3d 1298, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the Claims
Court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction. First,
Ms. Deweese failed to plead the existence of a valid
contract between her and the federal government. The
contracts she does allege are agreements between Ms.
Deweese and the State of New Mexico. Appx24–27.
Despite Ms. Deweese’s assertion to the contrary, the State
of New Mexico is not the federal government. These
agreements therefore do not constitute an express or
implied contract with the United States. 28 U.S.C. §
1491(a)(1) (noting the express or implied contract must be
“with the United States”); see also Moore v. Pub. Defs. Off.,
76 Fed. Cl. 617, 620 (2007) (“When a plaintiff ’s complaint
names private parties, or local, county, or state agencies,
rather than federal agencies, this court has no jurisdiction
to hear those allegations.”). Accordingly, the Claims Court
does not have jurisdiction over Ms. Deweese’s breach of
contract claims.
Second, Ms. Deweese’s due process and tort claims also
fail to establish the Claims Court’s jurisdiction. “The law is
well settled that the Due Process clauses of both the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments do not mandate the payment
of money and thus do not provide a cause of action under
Case: 24-1791 Document: 43 Page: 4 Filed: 12/06/2024

-- 4 of 5 --

DEWEESE v. US 5
the Tucker Act.” Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114,
1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). It is also well
established that the Claims Court does not have
jurisdiction over tort claims. Trafny v. United States, 503
F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Tucker Act expressly
limits the Claims Court’s jurisdiction to “cases not
sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over Ms.
Deweese’s due process and tort claims.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Ms. Deweese’s remaining
arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing
reasons, we affirm the Claims Court’s dismissal of Ms.
Deweese’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1791 Document: 43 Page: 5 Filed: 12/06/2024

-- 5 of 5 --