Michele Gray v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MICHELE GRAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1955
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-00631-CNL, Judge Carolyn N. Lerner.
______________________
Decided: April 5, 2024
______________________
MICHELE G RAY , Rensselaer, NY, pro se.
BRENDAN D AVID J ORDAN, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, L ISA L EFANTE D ONAHUE,
P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY .
______________________
Before P ROST , T ARANTO, and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1955 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 04/05/2024

-- 1 of 4 --

GRAY v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Michele R. Gray has appealed from the United States
Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of her complaint for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons,
we affirm.
Ms. Gray filed a complaint against the federal govern-
ment in the Court of Federal Claims asserting subject-mat-
ter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1). S.A. 4–5.1 The complaint alleged, citing 11
U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), (4), that Ms. Gray’s Summerville, South
Carolina property was taken without good cause pursuant
to bankruptcy proceedings. S.A. 7. Ms. Gray listed the
“monetary damages and other relief” sought as “(1) equita-
ble relief payment; 26 CFR § 1.6015-4 and (2) Administra-
tive Procedure Act (APA) breach under an implied-in-fact
contract. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559.” S.A. 6.
The Court of Federal Claims concluded that it lacked
jurisdiction over Ms. Gray’s complaint. First, the court
noted that “[t]his is the second time [Ms. Gray] has filed a
complaint before the Court of Federal Claims concerning
the Summerville property.” S.A. 1. Next, the court ex-
plained that “[t]he Court of Federal Claims does not have
jurisdiction over cases sounding in bankruptcy.” Id. (citing
Allustiarte v. United States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir.
2001)). Finally, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdic-
tion over Ms. Gray’s claims in equity and under the APA,
the facts of which did not implicate actions by, or contracts
with, the United States in any event. S.A. 1–2.
In addition to dismissing the complaint, the Court of
Federal Claims entered an anti-filing order “[i]n light of
Ms. Gray’s repeated filing of frivolous complaints and other
baseless pleadings.” S.A. 2 (“[S]ee Gray v. United States,
1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix submit-
ted with the government’s informal brief.
Case: 23-1955 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 04/05/2024

-- 2 of 4 --

GRAY v. US 3
No. 22-749 (Fed. Cl. Jul. 13, 2022) (dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Gray v. United States,
No. 22-541 (Fed. Cl. Sep[t]. 8, 2022) (dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction); Gray v. United States, No. 22-
717 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 19, 2022) (same); Gray v. United States,
No. 22-848 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 3, 2022) (same).”). Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court of Federal Claims certi-
fied that any appeal from its order would not be taken in
good faith. S.A. 3.
Ms. Gray timely appealed, and this court has jurisdic-
tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
We review the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Waltner v.
United States, 679 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The Court of Federal Claims is a federal tribunal of
limited jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491. In the Tucker
Act, Congress waived sovereign immunity for certain ac-
tions for monetary relief against the United States. See id.
Plaintiffs who pursue claims under the Tucker Act “must
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). Here, while Ms. Gray
named the United States as the defendant, the Court of
Federal Claims was correct in concluding “the facts pleaded
do not implicate the federal government.” S.A. 2. Addi-
tionally, the Court of Federal Claims does not have juris-
diction to review bankruptcy-related claims under 11
U.S.C. § 362, nor does it have jurisdiction over Ms. Gray’s
claims for equitable relief or arising under the APA.
Blodgett v. United States, 792 F. App’x 921, 925 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (nonprecedential) (“[D]istrict courts—and not the
Claims Court—have ‘original and exclusive jurisdiction of
all cases under title 11.’” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a)));
Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(“The Tucker Act does not provide independent jurisdiction
over such claims for equitable relief.”); Martinez v. United
Case: 23-1955 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 04/05/2024

-- 3 of 4 --

GRAY v. US 4
States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[T]he Court
of Federal Claims lacks APA jurisdiction.”).
We have considered Ms. Gray’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No Costs.
Case: 23-1955 Document: 23 Page: 4 Filed: 04/05/2024

-- 4 of 4 --