`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`2022-1786
`
`J. WICKRAMARATNA, aka Jac Wright, TEXEL EN-
`GINEERING LTD., aka T Ltd.,
`Plaintiffs-Appellants
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2022-1786
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
`in No. 1:21-cv-02342-MHS, Judge Matthew H. Solomson.
`______________________
`
`ON MOTION
`______________________
`
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`O R D E R
`J. Wickramaratna filed a complaint at the United
`
`States Court of Federal Claims for $10 billion, primarily
`alleging that a host of federal officials and employees, in-
`cluding members of Congress and employees of the Depart-
`ments of State, Defense, and Justice, are involved in a
`conspiracy to obstruct her alleged relationship with Presi-
`dent Trump. She asserted tort violations, civil rights
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1786 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 12/08/2022
`
`2
`
`
`
`WICKRAMARATNA v. US
`
`violations, and a breach of contract, as well as a laundry
`list of criminal acts.* The Court of Federal Claims dis-
`missed her breach-of-contract claim because Ms. Wick-
`ramaratna failed to allege sufficient facts to state a
`plausible claim for relief and dismissed Ms. Wickrama-
`ratna’s remaining claims for lack of jurisdiction or as friv-
`olous. She appeals and now moves for leave to proceed in
`forma pauperis. She has also filed her opening brief, ECF
`Nos. 12 and 14.
`Because the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Wickrama-
`ratna’s complaint was so “clearly correct” and “no substan-
`tial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists,”
`we summarily affirm. Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d
`378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1491, limits jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims to
`claims for money damages against the United States in
`cases “not sounding in tort,” § 1491(a)(1). It does not give
`the court jurisdiction over Ms. Wickramaratna’s claims
`arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which are under the juris-
`diction of district courts, or over her alleged violations of
`the First Amendment or the Due Process Clause of the
`Fifth Amendment. LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025,
`1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995); United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d
`882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`The Court of Federal Claims properly found that the
`only conceivable basis for its jurisdiction was the breach-
`of-contract claim but dismissed that claim on the ground
`that Ms. Wickramaratna failed to allege plausible facts
`that would show she had a contract with the federal gov-
`ernment or had bid rejected on a proposed government con-
`tract that could give rise to the court’s jurisdiction under
`
`* No counsel has appeared on behalf of Texel Engi-
`neering. Ms. Wickramaratna indicates that Texel Engi-
`neering is a United Kingdom entity that may be akin to a
`sole proprietorship. See, e.g., ECF No. 12 at 12.
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1786 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 12/08/2022
`
`WICKRAMARATNA v. US
`
` 3
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1491(b). The court was right to do so. The
`claim was premised on the frivolous allegations that
`formed the basis of her other alleged violations. Compl. at
`2. Allegations that fall into those categories are insuffi-
`cient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Neitzke v.
`Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989).
`
`Accordingly,
`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`(1) The judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is af-
`firmed.
`
`(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.
`
`(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
` December 8, 2022
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
` Date
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
