Beverly Jean Dollen v. United States

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BEVERLY JEAN DOLLEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1771
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-02089-ZNS, Judge Zachary N. Somers.
______________________
Decided: November 7, 2024
______________________
BEVERLY JEAN DOLLEN, Sandyville, WV, pro se.
KELLY GEDDES, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented
by REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON,
PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before DYK, CLEVENGER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1771 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 11/07/2024

-- 1 of 4 --

DOLLEN v. US 2
PER CURIAM.
Beverly Jean Dollen brought suit in the United States
Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”), alleging that she
was unlawfully deprived of custody of her children by state
officials. Proceeding pro se, she appeals from a decision of
the Claims Court dismissing her complaint for failure to
prosecute and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Because the Claims Court did not err in dismissing her
complaint, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Dollen filed suit in the Claims Court on December
6, 2023, claiming violations of approximately thirty
criminal provisions, a “Constitutional right to be left alone
from CPS, Child Protective Services, under the Fourth
Amendment of the US Constitution,” and a demand for the
immediate return of her children. S.A. 3–4.1 Two months
later, the government moved to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. S.A. 1. Ms. Dollen never filed a
response to the government’s motion. Id. The Claims
Court dismissed her case for failure to prosecute, finding
that Rule 41 of the Rules of the United States Court of
Federal Claims (“RCFC”) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff
fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court
order, the court may dismiss on its own motion[.]” RCFC
41(b).
The Claims Court alternatively found that “any
response [p]laintiff could have filed with the [c]ourt would
not have changed the outcome of this case.” S.A. 2. The
court concluded that Ms. Dollen’s claim fell “well outside
this [c]ourt’s jurisdiction” as it was not against the United
1 We refer to the supplemental appendix filed with
the government’s informal response brief as “S.A.”
throughout this opinion.
Case: 24-1771 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 11/07/2024

-- 2 of 4 --

DOLLEN v. US 3
States. Id. The Claims Court also dismissed the case for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
DISCUSSION
We review the Claims Court’s dismissal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Stephens v. United
States, 884 F.3d 1151, 1155 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Although pro
se litigants are not held to the same pleading standard as
represented plaintiffs, a pro se litigant is nonetheless
obligated to establish that the court has subject matter
jurisdiction. See Roman v. United States, 61 F.4th 1366,
1370 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
The Claims Court properly concluded that Ms. Dollen’s
complaint is not within the jurisdiction of the Claims
Court. Ms. Dollen’s complaint was directed to “state and
local Child Protective Services officers, who she believes
unlawfully took her children.” S.A. 2. Specifically, Ms.
Dollen’s complaint is directed to a state judge, a CPS agent,
and a guardian ad litem. These are not federal officials.
The Claims Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and,
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); see also United States v. Sherwood,
312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (“[The] jurisdiction [of the Court
of Claims] is confined to the rendition of money damages in
suits brought for . . . relief against the United States, and
if the relief sought is against others then the United States
the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the
jurisdiction of the court.” (internal citations omitted)). A
suit against state and local officials challenging their
conduct is not a suit against the United States and thus is
outside of the Claims Court’s jurisdiction.
Case: 24-1771 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 11/07/2024

-- 3 of 4 --

DOLLEN v. US 4
Because we conclude that the dismissal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction was proper, we need not address
the alternative dismissal for failure to prosecute.
We have considered Ms. Dollen’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1771 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 11/07/2024

-- 4 of 4 --