Addams-Moore v. United States , 144 F. App'x 886 ( 2005 )

NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is
not citable as precedent. It is a public record.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
05-5024
MARTI ADDAMS-MORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________________
DECIDED: October 4, 2005
__________________________
Before MAYER, SCHALL, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Marti Addams-More seeks review of an order of the United States Court of
Federal Claims dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Addams-
More v. United States, No. 04-CV-1154 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 17, 2004) (“Dismissal Order”).
We affirm.
Whether the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed Addams-More’s
complaint for lack of jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. See
Wilson v. United States, 405 F.3d 1002, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2005). On July 12, 2004,
Addams-More filed a complaint seeking relief on four counts: a qui tam claim arising
under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33 (2000); a RICO claim arising under
18 U.S.C. § 1964 (2000); and two tort claims. As the trial court stated in the Dismissal
Order, the “jurisdictional statutes governing the United States Court of Federal Claims
grant authority to the court only to issue judgments for money against the United States,
provided that the claims are grounded in a contract or arise pursuant to a money-
mandating statute, regulation, or provision of the Constitution.” Id. at 1 (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491; United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 397 (1976)). The Court of Federal
Claims does not have jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(2); Wood v. United States, 961 F.2d 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Because
Addams-More’s claims do not fall within the jurisdictional grant, the trial court properly
dismissed her complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
On reconsideration, Addams-More raised three additional claims for relief, which
the trial court considered. First, the court properly held that the Court of Federal Claims
does not have jurisdiction to hear a claim arising under an implied-in-law contract
theory. See Hercules Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417, 423 (1996). Second, it
correctly found that Addams-More’s improper assertion of her qui tam claim as a takings
claim did not give rise to jurisdiction. Third, the court properly held that Addams-More’s
claim for copyright infringement, asserted against a private defendant, did not come
within the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdictional grant.
05-5024 2