Case: 22-2297 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 02/09/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LAUNA GOLDDEEN OGBURN,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-2297
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-00502-CNL, Judge Carolyn N. Lerner.
______________________
Decided: February 9, 2023
______________________
LAUNA GOLDDEEN OGBURN, Woodbridge, VA, pro se.
IOANA CRISTEI, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before LOURIE, PROST, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-2297 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 02/09/2023
2 OGBURN v. US
PER CURIAM.
Launa Golddeen Ogburn appeals a decision of the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims dismissing her complaint for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Ogburn served in the U.S. Navy from 2001 until
2004 and contributed to a Thrift Savings Plan (“TSP”) ac-
count through automatic paycheck deductions. SAppx8. 1
In 2005, after she had retired from the Navy and begun
working for a private company, Ms. Ogburn requested that
funds from her TSP account be rolled over into her private
retirement account. Id. She alleges that she received TSP
correspondence in March 2005 informing her that she had
failed to complete paperwork necessary to roll her funds
over and ultimately decided to keep the funds in the TSP
account. Id.; SAppx28.
In 2007, TSP received a request, which Ms. Ogburn had
ostensibly signed, that all of Ms. Ogburn’s TSP funds be
transferred to a private retirement plan. SAppx11,
SAppx33–34. Ms. Ogburn alleges that the handwriting on
the request is not her own and that the transferee account
was fraudulent. SAppx8, SAppx28. A 2007 Internal Rev-
enue Service Form 1099-R showed a total distribution of
$9,978.97 from Ms. Ogburn’s TSP account. SAppx35.
In 2016, Ms. Ogburn withdrew $73,315.43 from her ci-
vilian TSP account—a separate, additional account from
her Navy TSP account—and rolled it over to her private
account. SAppx15–17. Sometime after that, a $6,518.32
withdrawal from her private account occurred, and Ms. Og-
burn alleges that she did not receive it. SAppx12,
SAppx14, SAppx17–18.
1 “SAppx” refers to the supplemental appendix that
the government submitted with its informal response brief.
Case: 22-2297 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 02/09/2023
OGBURN v. US 3
Ms. Ogburn filed a pro se complaint in the Court of Fed-
eral Claims in May 2022. SAppx1. That court liberally
construed her complaint to allege that:
(1) she did not authorize a rollover of $9,978.97
from her Navy TSP account into a Fidelity invest-
ment account in 2007; (2) she does not have access
to the Fidelity account to which the funds were
rolled over, and the Fidelity account and the IRS
form documenting the transfer are fraudulent;
(3) an unidentified “civilian employee of the Fed-
eral Government” seemingly “claimed” the funds
from the Fidelity account following the rollover;
and (4) in 2016, after rolling over her Navy TSP
funds into a First Command Financial Planning ac-
count, an error caused $6,518.32 to be withdrawn
from her First Command account without Ms. Og-
burn having “requested or received” the transfer.
Id. She requested that the court award her the allegedly
fraudulently withdrawn sum and “yearly gains,” which the
Court of Federal Claims interpreted to be the interest those
funds would have accrued since 2004. SAppx1–2.
The Government moved to dismiss Ms. Ogburn’s
claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the Court
of Federal Claims granted the motion. SAppx2. It con-
cluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Ms.
Ogburn’s 2007 rollover claims because they did “not
amount to a taking under the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution or arise out of a contract with
the United States.” SAppx3 (citation omitted). It also ob-
served that “Ms. Ogburn’s claims of fraud sound in tort,
and the Tucker Act expressly deprives this Court of juris-
diction over tort claims.” Id. (citing Brown v. United States,
105 F.3d 621, 622–23 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The court went on
to interpret the Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act
as the applicable money-mandating provision governing
Ms. Ogburn’s 2007 rollover claims and noted that Congress
Case: 22-2297 Document: 24 Page: 4 Filed: 02/09/2023
4 OGBURN v. US
had “granted ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ to the United States
district courts for causes of action for funds from federal
government TSP accounts, including military TSP ac-
counts such as Ms. Ogburn’s.”
Id. (citation omitted). Fi-
nally, the court noted that Ms. Ogburn’s 2007 rollover
claims were time-barred because she failed to bring her
claim “by the earlier of six years after her claim occurred,
or six years after she discovered the [allegedly] fraudulent
violation.” SAppx4 (citation omitted).
With respect to Ms. Ogburn’s 2016 withdrawal, the
court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction
because “the funds ceased to be part of a federal govern-
ment retirement account” when Ms. Ogburn rolled over her
TSP funds into her private account.
Id. “Because the 2016
withdrawal claim centers on an alleged error concerning
Ms. Ogburn’s private retirement account,” the court said,
“this allegation cannot be considered a claim for money
damages against the United States.”
Id. (citing Jankovic
v. United States,
204 Ct. Cl. 807, 807 (1974)). Because the
claim was not founded upon the Constitution, an Act of
Congress, any regulation, or any contract with the United
States, the claim did “not present a cognizable basis for ju-
risdiction under the Tucker Act.”
Id.
The Court of Federal Claims then entered judgment
dismissing Ms. Ogburn’s claims for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. SAppx6. Ms. Ogburn appeals. 2 We have ju-
risdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
DISCUSSION
A plaintiff must establish subject-matter jurisdiction
by a preponderance of the evidence. M. Maropakis Car-
pentry, Inc. v. United States,
609 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir.
2 Ms. Ogburn’s Informal Brief does not mention any
claims related to the 2016 withdrawal, so we do not discuss
that transaction.
Case: 22-2297 Document: 24 Page: 5 Filed: 02/09/2023
OGBURN v. US 5
2010). We review a Court of Federal Claims decision dis-
missing a complaint for lack of jurisdiction de novo.
Id. In
conducting the review, we treat the complaint’s factual al-
legations as true and construe them in the light most fa-
vorable to the non-moving party. See Inter-Tribal Council
of Ariz., Inc. v. United States,
956 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed.
Cir. 2020).
The Tucker Act gives the Court of Federal Claims ju-
risdiction over claims “against the United States founded
either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any
regulation of an executive department, or upon any express
or implied contract with the United States, or for liqui-
dated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in
tort.”
28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). A plaintiff asserting subject-
matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act must identify a
source of law separate from the Tucker Act that creates a
right to money damages, i.e., a money-mandating provi-
sion. Fisher v. United States,
402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed.
Cir. 2005).
Ms. Ogburn first contends that the Court of Federal
Claims “has the means to investigate fraud and theft of
the” TSP. Appellant’s Informal Br. 1. She does not explain
what means she envisions, nor does she identify any errors
underlying the court’s conclusions that the Tucker Act ex-
pressly deprives the Court of Federal Claims of jurisdiction
over tort claims or that district courts, which the Court of
Federal Claims is not, have exclusive jurisdiction over
causes of action for funds from federal-government TSP ac-
counts. See SAppx3–4. We see no error in the court’s anal-
ysis.
Ms. Ogburn next suggests that the Court of Federal
Claims applied the wrong law and, instead, should have
applied “TSP [r]ules, [s]tatutes, [a]mendment and [g]uide-
lines to include TSP.” In making this argument, she spe-
cifically notes
5 U.S.C. § 8474. Appellant’s Informal Br. 2.
No TSP rule or statute, however, undermines the Tucker
Case: 22-2297 Document: 24 Page: 6 Filed: 02/09/2023
6 OGBURN v. US
Act’s limitations on the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdic-
tion, and § 8474 simply provides for the appointment of an
Executive Director for the Federal Retirement Thrift In-
vestment Management System and outlines that director’s
responsibilities; it does not confer upon the Court of Fed-
eral Claims the jurisdiction Ms. Ogburn seeks. See
5 U.S.C. § 8474.
The rest of Ms. Ogburn’s brief seeks repayment of the
funds that she alleges were fraudulently transferred in
2007. Appellant’s Informal Br. 2–3. Ms. Ogburn identifies
no errors in the Court of Federal Claims’ decision, nor does
she articulate any basis for that court’s jurisdiction over
her claims. Finally, Ms. Ogburn did not challenge the
Court of Federal Claims’ determination that her claims are
barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Accord-
ingly, we affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ judgment of
dismissal.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Ms. Ogburn’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons set
forth above, we affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ judg-
ment.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
