Dineen Cherylann Etienne, on behalf of her- self and Daequan Mykal Samuels v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DINEEN CHERYLANN ETIENNE, on behalf of her-
self and Daequan Mykal Samuels,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1333
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-01625-EDK, Chief Judge Elaine Kaplan.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
After the filing of Dineen Cherylann Etienne’s opening
brief, the United States moves to summarily affirm the
judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dis-
missing Ms. Etienne’s complaint. For the following rea-
sons, we grant the motion.
Case: 23-1333 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 04/21/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

ETIENNE v. US 2
Ms. Etienne brought a sprawling complaint alleging
that the federal government and a host of state, local, and
private entities and individuals conspired to oppress,
threaten, and intimidate her and her son. She asserted vi-
olations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses
of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985,
the Patriot Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO). On December 5, 2022, the
Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s motion
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court also rejected
Ms. Etienne’s allegations that the Clerk of that court had
altered and redacted information from her amended com-
plaint. After the Court of Federal Claims denied Ms.
Etienne’s motion for reconsideration, she filed this appeal.
We agree that summary affirmance is appropriate here
because there is “no substantial question regarding the
outcome” of Ms. Etienne’s appeal. Joshua v. United States,
17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). The
Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that it could
only review claims against the United States. United
States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941). The court
was also clearly correct that none of the sources of law Ms.
Etienne identified in the complaint created a right to
money damages against the United States that could give
the court jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1). See LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025,
1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that the Due Process and
Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment
are not money mandating); Shelden v. United States, 742
F. App’x 496, 501–02 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (no jurisdiction over
claims for damages under RICO or §§ 1983 and 1985). As
for Ms. Etienne’s claims of defamation, torture, conspiracy,
and stalking, the Court of Federal Claims correctly found
that those claims sound in tort, and thus are outside of its
jurisdiction. See Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Lastly, Ms. Etienne’s
allegations of fraud on the court are wholly without merit.
Case: 23-1333 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 04/21/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

ETIENNE v. US 3
The amended complaint is stamped “Received – USCFC
NOV 10 2022.” Review of its contents reveals no signs of
alteration or redaction, and Ms. Etienne fails to provide
any detail of how her complaint was allegedly tampered
with.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted.
The judgment is summarily affirmed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
April 21, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 23-1333 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 04/21/2023

-- 3 of 3 --