Case: 23-1955 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 04/05/2024
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`MICHELE GRAY,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2023-1955
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
`in No. 1:23-cv-00631-CNL, Judge Carolyn N. Lerner.
`______________________
`
`Decided: April 5, 2024
`______________________
`
`MICHELE GRAY, Rensselaer, NY, pro se.
`
`
` BRENDAN DAVID JORDAN, Commercial Litigation
`Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
`tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
`sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE,
`PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
`______________________
`
`Before PROST, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1955 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 04/05/2024
`
`2
`
`GRAY v. US
`
`PER CURIAM.
`Michele R. Gray has appealed from the United States
`Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of her complaint for lack
`of subject-matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons,
`we affirm.
`Ms. Gray filed a complaint against the federal govern-
`ment in the Court of Federal Claims asserting subject-mat-
`ter
`jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1491(a)(1). S.A. 4–5.1 The complaint alleged, citing 11
`U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), (4), that Ms. Gray’s Summerville, South
`Carolina property was taken without good cause pursuant
`to bankruptcy proceedings. S.A. 7. Ms. Gray listed the
`“monetary damages and other relief” sought as “(1) equita-
`ble relief payment; 26 CFR § 1.6015-4 and (2) Administra-
`tive Procedure Act (APA) breach under an implied-in-fact
`contract. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559.” S.A. 6.
`The Court of Federal Claims concluded that it lacked
`jurisdiction over Ms. Gray’s complaint. First, the court
`noted that “[t]his is the second time [Ms. Gray] has filed a
`complaint before the Court of Federal Claims concerning
`the Summerville property.” S.A. 1. Next, the court ex-
`plained that “[t]he Court of Federal Claims does not have
`jurisdiction over cases sounding in bankruptcy.” Id. (citing
`Allustiarte v. United States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir.
`2001)). Finally, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdic-
`tion over Ms. Gray’s claims in equity and under the APA,
`the facts of which did not implicate actions by, or contracts
`with, the United States in any event. S.A. 1–2.
`In addition to dismissing the complaint, the Court of
`Federal Claims entered an anti-filing order “[i]n light of
`Ms. Gray’s repeated filing of frivolous complaints and other
`baseless pleadings.” S.A. 2 (“[S]ee Gray v. United States,
`
`“S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix submit-
`1
`ted with the government’s informal brief.
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1955 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 04/05/2024
`
`GRAY v. US
`
`3
`
`No. 22-749 (Fed. Cl. Jul. 13, 2022) (dismissed for lack of
`jurisdiction per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Gray v. United States,
`No. 22-541 (Fed. Cl. Sep[t]. 8, 2022) (dismissed for lack of
`subject matter jurisdiction); Gray v. United States, No. 22-
`717 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 19, 2022) (same); Gray v. United States,
`No. 22-848 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 3, 2022) (same).”). Pursuant to
`28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court of Federal Claims certi-
`fied that any appeal from its order would not be taken in
`good faith. S.A. 3.
`Ms. Gray timely appealed, and this court has jurisdic-
`tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
`We review the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for
`lack of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Waltner v.
`United States, 679 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`The Court of Federal Claims is a federal tribunal of
`limited jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491. In the Tucker
`Act, Congress waived sovereign immunity for certain ac-
`tions for monetary relief against the United States. See id.
`Plaintiffs who pursue claims under the Tucker Act “must
`identify a separate source of substantive law that creates
`the right to money damages.” Fisher v. United States, 402
`F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Here, while Ms. Gray
`named the United States as the defendant, the Court of
`Federal Claims was correct in concluding “the facts pleaded
`do not implicate the federal government.” S.A. 2. Addi-
`tionally, the Court of Federal Claims does not have juris-
`diction to review bankruptcy-related claims under 11
`U.S.C. § 362, nor does it have jurisdiction over Ms. Gray’s
`claims for equitable relief or arising under the APA.
`Blodgett v. United States, 792 F. App’x 921, 925 (Fed. Cir.
`2019) (nonprecedential) (“[D]istrict courts—and not the
`Claims Court—have ‘original and exclusive jurisdiction of
`all cases under title 11.’” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a)));
`Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
`(“The Tucker Act does not provide independent jurisdiction
`over such claims for equitable relief.”); Martinez v. United
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1955 Document: 23 Page: 4 Filed: 04/05/2024
`
`4
`
`GRAY v. US
`
`States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[T]he Court
`of Federal Claims lacks APA jurisdiction.”).
`We have considered Ms. Gray’s remaining arguments
`and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
`affirm.
`
`AFFIRMED
`COSTS
`
`No Costs.
`
`