Case: 25-1226 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 07/09/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ JULIE TANSER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2025-1226 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-01409-EDK, Judge Elaine Kaplan. ______________________ Decided: July 9, 2025 ______________________ JULIE TANSER, New York, NY, pro se.

WILLIAM KANELLIS, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, YAAKOV ROTH. ______________________ Case: 25-1226 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 07/09/2025

2 TANSER v. US

Before HUGHES and STARK, Circuit Judges, and WANG, District Judge.1 PER CURIAM.

Pro se plaintiff-appellant Julie Tanser appeals from an order of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing her case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Tanser v. United States, No. 1:24-cv-1409, 2024 WL 5110181, at *1-2 (Ct. Fed. Cl. Nov. 13, 2024) (“Decision”). We affirm.

Ms. Tanser alleged in her complaint that several New York state agencies and courts, along with private individ- uals, “interfered with her ability to collect an award from the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Ger- many.” Decision at *1. She did not request any specific relief. Ms. Tanser appears to have filed or attempted to file related suits in other federal and state courts, including the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York and for the District of Columbia, as well as the Surrogate’s Court of New York County, New York. See id. The Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s mo- tion to dismiss Ms. Tanser’s complaint under Court of Fed- eral Claims Rule 12(b)(1), reasoning that it did not have statutory authority to adjudicate cases that do not involve a request for relief against the United States. See Decision at *1-2.

“We review the grant of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction de novo.” Associated Energy Grp., LLC v. United States, 131 F.4th 1312, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2025).

Where, as here, the court decides the motion without con- sidering material outside the pleadings, the court must “ac- cept as true all undisputed facts asserted in the plaintiff’s complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of

1 The Honorable Nina Y. Wang, United States Dis- trict Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by designa- tion.

Case: 25-1226 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 07/09/2025

TANSER v. US 3

the plaintiff.” Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In doing so, the court must liberally construe pro se filings, which are “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (inter- nal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he Court of Federal Claims, like all federal courts, is a court of limited jurisdiction.” Terran ex rel. Terran v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 195 F.3d 1302, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1999). As pertinent here, the Tucker Act pro- vides the Court of Federal Claims authority to adjudicate only “claim[s] against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regu- lation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Claims that seek relief “against others than the United States” are “beyond the jurisdiction of the court.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941).

Ms. Tanser’s complaint makes allegations only against state instrumentalities and private individuals. Tanser v. United States, No. 1:24-cv-1409, D.I. 1 at 4. Although she lists the United States as a defendant in her case cap- tion, her complaint alleges no wrongdoing by the United States or any federal entity. Nor does it seek any relief from the United States. Therefore, the Court of Federal Claims does not have subject matter jurisdiction over her complaint, as that court correctly determined. See Lawton v. United States, 621 F. App’x 671, 672 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (af- firming dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of claims based on factual allegations directed at “state agencies, state offi- cials, and private individuals”).

Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED Case: 25-1226 Document: 31 Page: 4 Filed: 07/09/2025

4 TANSER v. US

COSTS The parties shall bear their own costs.