Ramey Alaine Chisum v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RAMEY ALAINE CHISUM,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1562
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-00067-EHM, Judge Edward H. Meyers.
______________________
Decided: October 7, 2025
______________________
RAMEY A. CHISUM , I, Kansas City, MO, pro se.
ELIZABETH M ARIE D URFEE P ULLIN, Commercial Litiga-
tion Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also rep-
resented by REGINALD T HOMAS BLADES , J R., P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY , YAAKOV R OTH .
______________________
Before P ROST , CUNNINGHAM , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 25-1562 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 10/07/2025

-- 1 of 6 --

CHISUM v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Ramey Alaine Chisum appeals a decision of the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims dismissing her complaint for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a
claim. Chisum v. United States, No. 24-67, 2025 WL
432997 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 7, 2025) (“Decision”). For the follow-
ing reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In January 2024, Ms. Chisum filed a complaint at the
Court of Federal Claims raising various claims against nu-
merous entities including the United States, a state
agency, and several other parties. Decision, 2025 WL
432997, at *1, *3. Specifically, Ms. Chisum claimed that
during several visits between 2007 and 2015, Truman Med-
ical Center failed to provide adequate treatment to her and
her children, causing them to suffer injuries from the Med-
ical Center’s care. Id. at *1. Ms. Chisum alleged that she
raised several complaints about the Medical Center with
the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services
and various federal agencies. Id. She alleged that the state
and federal agencies are liable for her and her children’s
injuries because the agencies failed to investigate her com-
plaints. Id.
Additionally, Ms. Chisum alleged that she applied for
Social Security Disability Insurance (“SSDI”) payments in
2010, but the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) re-
voked her benefits later that year. Id. She further alleged
that, in 2022, she entered into a contract with the Depart-
ment of Justice to “assure and enforce zero retaliation” by
the SSA and the Department of Housing and Human Ser-
vices, but the government subsequently breached that con-
tract. Id. (citation omitted). She also alleged that she
obtained a “section 8 voucher” from resolution of a previous
case at the Court of Federal Claims, but the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) terminated her
section 8 voucher without cause or notice. Id. She
Case: 25-1562 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 10/07/2025

-- 2 of 6 --

CHISUM v. US 3
described her and her children living in isolation and
blamed the government for her eviction and separation
from her community. Id.
The government moved to dismiss Ms. Chisum’s com-
plaint due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure
to state a claim. Ms. Chisum moved for summary judg-
ment. The Court of Federal Claims granted the govern-
ment’s motion and denied Ms. Chisum’s motion as moot.
The court first dismissed Ms. Chisum’s claims against the
Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services and
Truman Medical Center and its staff for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction because the court “does not have juris-
diction over claims against state agencies or private par-
ties.” Id. at *2. The court next dismissed Ms. Chisum’s
inadequate-medical-care and SSDI claims because they
were not within the court’s six-year statute of limitations.
Id. at *3. The court then dismissed her claims regarding
her alleged 2022 agreement with the Department of Jus-
tice and HUD allegedly terminating her section 8 voucher
because (1) her alleged social-isolation, fraud, and perjury
claims were tort or criminal-law claims over which the
court lacked jurisdiction; (2) her Fifth Amendment Due
Process claim was not a money-mandating constitutional
claim over which the court had jurisdiction; and (3) she
failed to state a claim that the government breached a con-
tract with her because, even if the court assumed to be true
her allegation that an agreement was made where the gov-
ernment would not retaliate if she voluntarily dismissed
her 2022 claims against SSA and HUD, she breached that
agreement by failing to voluntarily dismiss her case. Id. at
*3–4. The court consequently denied Ms. Chisum’s sum-
mary judgment motion as moot. Id. at *5.
Ms. Chisum timely appealed. We have jurisdiction un-
der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
Case: 25-1562 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 10/07/2025

-- 3 of 6 --

CHISUM v. US 4
D ISCUSSION
We review the Court of Federal Claims’ decision dis-
missing the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction de
novo. Diaz v. United States, 853 F.3d 1355, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2017). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing juris-
diction by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. “We review
a grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim de
novo.” Frankel v. United States, 842 F.3d 1246, 1249
(Fed. Cir. 2016). When deciding a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, the court must dismiss the com-
plaint when the “facts asserted by the [plaintiff] do not en-
title him [or her] to a legal remedy,” Lindsay v. United
States, 295 F.3d 1252, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the facts
“do not elevate a claim for relief to the realm of plausibil-
ity,” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d
1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 679 (2009)).
On appeal, Ms. Chisum mainly argues that the Court
of Federal Claims failed to hold the government responsi-
ble to adhere to the rights of the Constitution. Appellant’s
Informal Br. 1. She argues that the Court of Federal
Claims has subject-matter jurisdiction over her complaint
and requests a grant of her summary judgment motion to
ensure that she and her children will not suffer any more
abuses by the government. Id. at 2–3.
We agree with the Court of Federal Claims that it lacks
jurisdiction to review most of Ms. Chisum’s claims and that
she failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
for her remaining breach-of-contract claim.
Under the Tucker Act, certain actions for monetary re-
lief against the United States can be brought in the Court
of Federal Claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491. The Tucker Act
grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to decide
“actions pursuant to contracts with the United States, ac-
tions to recover illegal exactions of money by the United
States, and actions brought pursuant to money-mandating
Case: 25-1562 Document: 27 Page: 4 Filed: 10/07/2025

-- 4 of 6 --

CHISUM v. US 5
statutes, regulations, executive orders, or constitutional
provisions.” Roth v. United States, 378 F.3d 1371, 1384
(Fed. Cir. 2004). “Every claim of which the United States
Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction shall be barred
unless the petition thereon is filed within six years after
such claim first accrues.” 28 U.S.C. § 2501; see John R.
Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130, 133–39
(2008) (confirming that the time limitation of § 2501 is ju-
risdictional).
The Court of Federal Claims correctly determined that
most of Ms. Chisum’s claims do not invoke its limited juris-
diction. Decision, 2025 WL 432997, at *2–4. First, because
the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over claims
for relief “against others than the United States,” United
States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941), it does not
have jurisdiction over Ms. Chisum’s claims against the
state or private actors. Second, the Court of Federal
Claims’ jurisdiction has a six-year statute of limitations,
28 U.S.C. § 2501, and Ms. Chisum has not shown that the
court erred in concluding that her claims concerning inad-
equate medical care and SSDI payments accrued before
January 2018 and are thus time-barred. Third, the Court
of Federal Claims’ limited jurisdiction does not include tort
claims, criminal-law claims, or non-money-mandating con-
stitutional provisions; therefore, it does not have jurisdic-
tion over such claims brought by Ms. Chisum. See, e.g., 28
U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (providing the Court of Federal Claims
with jurisdiction over certain claims “not sounding in
tort”); LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed.
Cir. 1995) (observing that the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment is not “a sufficient basis for jurisdiction
[at the Court of Federal Claims] because [it does] not man-
date payment of money by the government”).
As to Ms. Chisum’s remaining breach-of-contract claim
against the government, we agree with the Court of Fed-
eral Claims that she failed to state a claim upon which re-
lief can be granted. See Decision, 2025 WL 432997, at *4.
Case: 25-1562 Document: 27 Page: 5 Filed: 10/07/2025

-- 5 of 6 --

CHISUM v. US 6
The Court of Federal Claims noted that Ms. Chisum al-
leged that in 2022 she had a claim pending against the gov-
ernment and that the government agreed it would not
retaliate if she voluntarily dismissed that complaint. Id.
The Court of Federal Claims determined that even if it ac-
cepted her allegations as true, Ms. Chisum did not volun-
tarily dismiss that complaint but instead opposed the
dismissal. Id. (citing Chisum v. United States, No. 22-377,
2023 WL 4147151 (Fed. Cl. June 23, 2023)). As a result,
the Court of Federal Claims determined that Ms. Chisum
“cannot prevail on her claim because by her own terms she
breached the agreement.” Id. Ms. Chisum has shown no
error in that determination. Accordingly, we affirm the
Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of Ms. Chisum’s com-
plaint.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Ms. Chisum’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1562 Document: 27 Page: 6 Filed: 10/07/2025

-- 6 of 6 --