Suzette Rodriguez v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SUZETTE RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1750
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
Claims in No. 1:24-cv-00642-SSS, Judge Stephen S.
Schwartz.
______________________
Decided: November 5, 2025
______________________
S UZETTE RODRIGUEZ, West Palm Beach, FL, pro se.
LISA LEFANTE D ONAHUE, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also
represented by PATRICIA M. MC CARTHY , BRETT SHUMATE .
______________________
Before D YK, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Case: 25-1750 Document: 30 Page: 1 Filed: 11/05/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

RODRIGUEZ v. US 2
PER CURIAM.
Suzette Grace Rodriguez appeals a decision of the
United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”)
dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter juris-
diction. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2019, Ms. Rodriguez filed a petition for writ of
mandamus at the Supreme Court of Florida seeking to
compel certain actions by a Florida District Court with
regard to a police department. The court denied her
petition. See Rodriguez v. State, No. SC19-1195, 2019
WL 6464040 (Fla. Dec. 2, 2019), reh’g denied, 2020
WL 1888660 (Fla. Apr. 16, 2020).
In 2024, Ms. Rodriguez filed a complaint at the
Claims Court. She sought $500 billion in damages related
to the Supreme Court of Florida’s dismissal of her man-
damus petition. The Claims Court dismissed
Ms. Rodriguez’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The
Claims Court explained its jurisdiction is limited to
claims against the United States and that many of
Ms. Rodriguez’s claims arose from “allegations involv[ing]
wrongdoing by state and local government officials or
institutions.” See Rodriguez v. United States, No. 24-
642C, 2025 WL 1219977, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 28, 2025).
The Claims Court also explained that while some of
Ms. Rodriguez’s claims implicated the United States—she
named several federal defendants in her complaint—those
claims did not fall within the court’s limited jurisdiction.
Ms. Rodriguez timely appealed. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review de novo the Claims Court’s dismissal of a
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Fletcher v. United
States, 26 F.4th 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2022). The plaintiff
Case: 25-1750 Document: 30 Page: 2 Filed: 11/05/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

RODRIGUEZ v. US 3
bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by the pre-
ponderance of the evidence. Id. In deciding a motion to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court
accepts as true all uncontroverted factual allegations in
the complaint, construing them in the light most favora-
ble to the plaintiff. Id.
The Claims Court is a court of limited jurisdiction.
Marcum LLP v. United States, 753 F.3d 1380, 1382
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Terran v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 195 F.3d 1302, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The Tucker
Act, which governs the Claims Court’s jurisdiction, grants
the Claims Court jurisdiction over certain claims against
the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). As the Claims
Court noted, many of Ms. Rodriguez’s allegations involve
wrongdoing by state and local government officials or
institutions. It is well established that the Claims Court
lacks jurisdiction over claims against defendants other
than the United States. United States v. Sherwood,
312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941). The Claims Court did not err in
dismissing Ms. Rodriguez’s claims to the extent they are
brought against state and local government officials and
institutions. Likewise, to the extent Ms. Rodriguez chal-
lenges a decision of the Florida Supreme Court, the
Claims Court lacks jurisdiction. See Exxon Mobil Corp.
v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005);
Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463–64 (2006).
Ms. Rodriguez’s claims against the United States are
also jurisdictionally insufficient. “To have jurisdiction
under the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a separate
source of law that ‘can fairly be interpreted as mandating
compensation by the Federal Government for the damage
sustained.’” Dinh v. United States, 145 F.4th 1316, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 2025) (quoting United States v. White Mountain
Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 472 (2003)). Ms. Rodriguez’s
complaint does not cite a money mandating statute. The
primary sources of law cited in Ms. Rodriguez’s amended
complaint are the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Federal
Case: 25-1750 Document: 30 Page: 3 Filed: 11/05/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

RODRIGUEZ v. US 4
Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 2006, and 21 U.S.C.
§ 848(e). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evi-
dence do not mandate compensation by the Federal
Government. Nor is either of these provisions money
mandating such that it could provide a basis for jurisdic-
tion under the Tucker Act. The Claims Court correctly
concluded that Ms. Rodriguez’s filings fail to establish
jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1750 Document: 30 Page: 4 Filed: 11/05/2025

-- 4 of 4 --