Gray v. United States

Case: 23-1538 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 06/14/2023
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MICHELE GRAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1538
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-00717-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Michele Gray has appealed from the United States
Court of Federal Claims’ judgment dismissing her com-
plaint. She now moves for leave to proceed in forma pau-
peris. For the following reasons, we summarily affirm.
Ms. Gray filed two civil suits against Amazon.com, Inc.
alleging that there was a manufacturing defect in toilet pa-
per she purchased online. After both suits were dismissed
Case: 23-1538 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 06/14/2023
2 GRAY v. US
in federal district court, Ms. Gray brought this suit in the
Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the United States
contributed to the negligence that resulted in her injury
and violated the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 264“by allowing delivery into interstate commerce of biological
product.” She asserted a right to damages under “FTCA,
28 U.S.C. § 2671” and “U.S. Code § 2674,” “Title 42 US Code
§§ 141, 144” and Section 1411 of Chapter 8 Article 14-A of
the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. The Court of
Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and certi-
fied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal
would not be taken in good faith.
The Court of Federal Claims is a federal tribunal of
limited jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1491. It may only review
claims against the United States based on substantive law
that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation
by the Federal Government.” United States v. Navajo Na-
tion, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) (citations omitted). Here, the
Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that it did not
have jurisdiction to review any of the claims raised in Ms.
Gray’s complaint because those claims were not against the
United States or were claims against the United States
that were clearly outside the tribunal’s limited grant of ju-
risdiction.
As for Ms. Gray’s claims for contributory negligence in
allowing Amazon to sell its product, the Court of Federal
Claims properly held those claims, which sound “in tort,”
to be outside the court’s jurisdiction. See Brown v. United
States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Ms. Gray has
also presented no cognizable basis to interpret 42 U.S.C.
§§ 141, 264, 28 U.S.C. § 2671, or the New York Civil Prac-
tice Rules as mandating compensation by the federal gov-
ernment. Ms. Gray likewise cannot sue the United States
in the Court of Federal Claims under the Federal Tort
Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2674, because that Act “vests juris-
diction over such claims exclusively in [federal] district
Case: 23-1538 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 06/14/2023
GRAY v. US 3
courts.” U.S. Marine, Inc. v. United States, 722 F.3d 1360,
1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
We have considered Ms. Gray’s arguments in her infor-
mal opening brief and do not find them to have any basis
in law or fact. For these reasons, we conclude that the
Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct in determining
that it lacked jurisdiction over Ms. Gray’s complaint. We
therefore affirm and do so by summary order. See Joshua
v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding
that summary disposition is appropriate when there is “no
substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The judgment of the United States Court of Federal
Claims is summarily affirmed.
(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
June 14, 2023 /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
Date Jarrett B. Perlow
Acting Clerk of Court