Case: 23-2052 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 12/15/2023
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IRINA COLLIER,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-2052
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-00654-RAH, Judge Richard A. Hertling.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
The United States moves to summarily affirm the judg-
ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismiss-
ing Irina Collier’s complaint. Ms. Collier responds and files
several motions for various relief, including consolidation
of this case with Appeal No. 2023-2420.
Ms. Collier brought a sprawling complaint in the Court
of Federal Claims that was liberally construed as alleging
Case: 23-2052 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 12/15/2023
2 COLLIER v. US
claims that “(1) government agencies obstructed justice in
connection with the attempted insurrection on January 6,
2021; (2) the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit mishandled one of [Ms. Collier]’s cases; (3) a domes-
tic-violence restraining order has been violated; (4) the U.S.
Postal Service [ ] committed fraud by mishandling her
mailed court filings; (5) [Ms. Collier]’s alleged misdiagnosis
with mental-health disorders was recorded in her medical
charts and police records and has affected her ability to
travel and receive medical and emergency care; (6) [Ms.
Collier] has suffered police brutality; (7) [Ms. Collier]’s son
has been trafficked, abused, and medically neglected; (8)
the plaintiff was misled into moving into a mental-health
facility receiving government funding; (9) Stanford Univer-
sity and the University of California are undermining the
government; and (10) numerous actors have violated the
Privacy Act, the Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Ob-
struct Terrorism Act (“Patriot Act”), and the Racketeer In-
fluenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).” Collier
v. United States, No. 23-654, slip op. at 1–2 (Fed. Cl. May
9, 2023).
On May 9, 2023, the Court of Federal Claims issued an
order granting Ms. Collier’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and sua sponte dismissing the complaint
under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the Court of Federal
Claims because Ms. Collier “had not identified a valid basis
for Tucker Act jurisdiction.” ECF No. 1-2 at 4. Noting that
Ms. Collier “has filed numerous claims and appeals” in the
federal courts that were recently “dismissed as frivolous
and duplicative of earlier claims,” the court concluded that
it would not be in the interest of justice to transfer to an-
other court under
28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Id. at 6. And it certi-
fied under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not
be taken in good faith.
Id. Ms. Collier nevertheless ap-
pealed.
Case: 23-2052 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 12/15/2023
COLLIER v. US 3
Ms. Collier’s brief and opposition to the government’s
motion fail to make any cogent, non-frivolous argument as
to why the Court of Federal Claims’ determination to dis-
miss her complaint was incorrect. Contrary to her argu-
ment, the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to
consider habeas claims. See Ledford v. United States,
297
F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The trial court was also
clearly correct in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to ad-
dress Ms. Collier’s various grievances regarding her prior
civil actions, Vereda, Ltda. v. United States,
271 F.3d 1367,
1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and that her Privacy Act, Patriot Act,
RICO, fraud, and other criminal or tort claims are clearly
outside the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Federal
Claims under the Tucker Act. See Bush v. United States,
627 F. App’x 928, 930 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Privacy Act); Clark
v. United States,
116 F. App’x 278, 279–80 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(Patriot Act); Shelden v. United States,
742 F. App’x 496,
501–02 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (RICO); Jones v. United States,
440
F. App’x 916, 918 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (review of other courts);
Brown v. United States,
105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(fraud). We have considered Ms. Collier’s remaining argu-
ments and conclude that they are without merit. Thus, we
agree with the government that summary disposition is ap-
propriate here because there is no “substantial question re-
garding the outcome” of the appeal. Joshua v. United
States,
17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted.
The judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims
is summarily affirmed.
(2) All other pending motions are denied.
Case: 23-2052 Document: 22 Page: 4 Filed: 12/15/2023
4 COLLIER v. US
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
December 15, 2023
Date
