Rachel Constant Beauvais v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RACHEL CONSTANT BEAUVAIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1353
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-01984-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.
______________________
Decided: June 6, 2024
______________________
RACHEL CONSTANT BEAUVAIS , Centreville, VA, pro se.
D ANIEL H OFFMAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY , D OUGLAS K.
MICKLE.
______________________
Before D YK, HUGHES , and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1353 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 06/06/2024

-- 1 of 5 --

BEAUVAIS v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Rachel Constant Beauvais appeals pro se from a deci-
sion of the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”), find-
ing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and transferring her
case to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia. Because we agree that the Claims
Court lacks jurisdiction and see no error in the decision to
transfer the case, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Beauvais filed a complaint in the Claims Court, al-
leging that her previous employers, “‘two companies under
the umbrella of Laboratory Corporation of America Hold-
ings’ and ‘Quest Diagnostics,’” “psychologically manipu-
lated” her. Beauvais v. United States, No. 23-1984, 2023
WL 8708420, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 15, 2023) (quoting Compl.
at 4.). She also alleged that her employers created a hostile
work environment and that “her employers did not respond
to her request to change her duties ‘even after they received
[her] paperwork from [her] mental health facility.’” Id. (al-
terations in original). Thus, Ms. Beauvais seemingly al-
leged that her employers violated Title VII and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
The Claims Court found that the complaint “only seeks
relief for harms allegedly perpetrated by her past private
employers.” Id. at *2. The Claims Court explained that
the “Court’s jurisdiction is limited by the Tucker Act to ren-
dition of money damages only in suits against the United
States” and found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
over Ms. Beauvais’s complaint. Id. (internal quotations
and citations omitted). The Claims Court also noted that
it lacked jurisdiction “to provide the specific type of [injunc-
tive] relief Beauvais seeks,” explaining that it “cannot en-
tertain claims for injunctive relief or order specific
performance, except in narrowly defined circumstances,”
none of which were satisfied here. Id. (citing Kanemoto v.
Reno, 41 F.3d 641, 644–45 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Case: 24-1353 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 06/06/2024

-- 2 of 5 --

BEAUVAIS v. US 3
After finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the
Claims Court considered whether Ms. Beauvais’s claims
should be transferred to a court that had jurisdiction. The
Claims Court found that the three requirements of 28
U.S.C. § 1631 for transfer had been met. The case was
transferred to the United States District Court of the East-
ern District of Virginia.
This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review a decision by the Claims Court to transfer a
case to another court for an abuse of discretion. Rick’s
Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338, 1342
(Fed. Cir. 2008).
The Claims Court properly found that it lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over Ms. Beauvais’s complaint. The
Claims Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Under the
Tucker Act, the Claims Court only has jurisdiction to hear
“claim[s] against the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588
(1941). Although her complaint lists the United States as
the defendant, Ms. Beauvais only makes allegations about
her two prior employers. S. Appx. 4–5.1 As the Claims
Court found, she “only seeks relief for harms allegedly per-
petrated by her past private employers.” Beauvais, 2023
WL 8708420, at *2. “[I]f the relief sought is against others
than the United States the suit as to them must be ignored
as beyond the jurisdiction of the court.” Sherwood, 312
U.S. at 588. “[O]r if its maintenance against private par-
ties is prerequisite to prosecution of the suit against the
United States the suit must be dismissed.” Id. Here, the
1 S. Appx. refers to the Supplemental Appendix at-
tached to Appellee’s Informal Response Brief, ECF No. 7.
Case: 24-1353 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 06/06/2024

-- 3 of 5 --

BEAUVAIS v. US 4
suit as to these two private companies is plainly beyond the
jurisdiction of the Claims Court.
On appeal, Ms. Beauvais raises several new arguments
as to why the Claims Court had jurisdiction. Because Ms.
Beauvais “did not raise t[hese] argument[s] before the
[Claims Court], [they are] waived on appeal.” San Carlos
Apache Tribe v. United States, 639 F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed.
Cir. 2011). But even if Ms. Beauvais had raised these ar-
guments below, the Claims Court would still lack subject
matter jurisdiction over her case.
Ms. Beauvais asserts in her opening brief to this court
that, “[a]lthough the companies are private businesses,”
the companies have violated the 13th Amendment and
other statutes. Appellant’s Informal Opening Br. 4. These
new allegations do not bring this case within the jurisdic-
tion of the Claims Court. The relevant fact for subject mat-
ter jurisdiction is that the complaint is against “private
businesses,” not the United States.
Additionally, Ms. Beauvais asserts that the two com-
panies named in her complaint, LabCorp and Quest Diag-
nostics, are “contractors of the federal government.”
Appellant’s Informal Opening Br. 4. But this allegation,
even taken as true, would not bring this case within the
Claims Court’s jurisdiction. A claim against a federal con-
tractor is still not a claim against the United States and
the Claims Court’s jurisdiction is “narrowly restricted to
the adjudication of suits brought against the Government
alone.” Sherwood, 312 U.S. at 589 (discussing the Tucker
Act jurisdiction of the United States Court of Claims, a pre-
decessor court to the Claims Court).
We also agree that the Claims Court properly trans-
ferred this case to the United States District Court of the
Eastern District of Virginia. The test whether to transfer
the case provides that when a court “finds that there is a
want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest
of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such
Case: 24-1353 Document: 15 Page: 4 Filed: 06/06/2024

-- 4 of 5 --

BEAUVAIS v. US 5
court . . . in which the action or appeal could have been
brought at the time it was filed or noticed.” 28 U.S.C
§ 1631; see Fisherman’s Harvest, Inc. v. PBS & J, 490 F.3d
1371, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this action, the Claims
Court analyzed these conditions and found “that it lack[ed]
subject-matter jurisdiction,” that the “Eastern District of
Virginia would be the appropriate forum to file the action,”
and that “Beauvais’s claims do not, on the record as it cur-
rently exists, appear frivolous,” so it would be “in the inter-
est of justice to allow Beauvais to pursue her claims in the
district court.” Beauvais, 2023 WL 8708420, at *3. We see
no error in the Claims Court’s decision.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1353 Document: 15 Page: 5 Filed: 06/06/2024

-- 5 of 5 --