Youmans v. United States

Case: 26-1350 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 09/14/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________

SHATWAYLLA YOUMANS,

Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2026-1350 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:25-cv-01902-EDK, Judge Elaine Kaplan.

______________________ Decided: September 14, 2026 ______________________

SHATWAYLLA YOUMANS, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.

OLIVER MCDONALD, Commercial Litigation Branch,

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE.

______________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and TARANTO, Circuit

Judges.

2 YOUMANS v. US PER CURIAM.

Shatwaylla Youmans appeals an order of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing her complaint for lack of juris- diction. Because none of Ms. Youmans’ allegations states a non-frivolous claim cognizable under the Tucker Act, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

In November 2025, Ms. Youmans filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims, accusing a wide variety of state and federal officials of a range of serious crimes, in- cluding fraud, waste, identity theft, wrongful imprison- ment, torture, attempted murder, illicit experimentation on human beings, battery by intentional communication of a variety of transmissible diseases (like Covid-19, AIDS, and tuberculosis), conspiracy with the Mexican drug cartel, and unlawful seizure of her daughter’s blood plasma. See generally S.Appx. 4–35 1 (Complaint). Ms. Youmans re- quested half a billion dollars in relief. Id. at 6.

The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Ms. Youmans’ complaint sua sponte for lack of subject-matter jurisdic- tion. S.Appx. 1; see also Rule 12(h)(3) 2. The court grouped Ms. Youmans’ claims into three categories and concluded none was within its jurisdiction because: (1) her fraud and money-mismanagement claims failed to identify a money-mandating source of law; (2) her claims against state officials and agencies either failed to implicate the United States or sounded in tort or criminal law; and (3) her averment that the Treasury Department miscalcu- lated her social security benefits and wrongfully requested YOUMANS v. US 3 repayment was a matter exclusively committed to the dis- trict courts’ jurisdiction. S.Appx. 2. Ms. Youmans appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

We review de novo a Court of Federal Claims dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Res. Cons. Grp., LLC v. United States, 597 F.3d 1238, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Under the Tucker Act, the United States has consented to suit for “any claim against the United States founded ei- ther upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, . . . or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Claims against the United States that are “frivolous, wholly insubstantial, or made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” will not give rise to jurisdiction. Columbus Reg’l Hosp. v. United States, 990 F.3d 1330, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Although we afford pro se plaintiffs more latitude in pleading, they still must es- tablish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. E.g., Roman v. United States, 61 F.4th 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2023).

On appeal, Ms. Youmans argues the Court of Federal Claims failed to take into account “[a]ll facts submitted within the case,” “did not specify the correct due process of court proceedings,” and failed to consider “[t]he [f]acts of [l]aw of unlawful [a]cts, illegal [a]cts committed.” Appel- lant Br. 1–2. She reiterates many of the allegations she made in her complaint. See generally, Reply Br. 2–30, 32– 51. 3 She further contends the Court of Federal Claims judge should have recused herself and that the judge com- mitted treason by dismissing Ms. Youmans’ complaint. Id.

As an initial matter, Ms. Youmans failed to seek recusal below. Accordingly, that argument is unavailable to her on appeal. In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[F]orfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right.” (quotation marks omitted)). In any case, her due-process argument fails be- cause her challenges seem to be limited to the fact that the decision was adverse to her. See Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that simply putting a “due process” label on a claim does not raise “a separate constitutional contention” distinct from a dispute about the merits); see also, e.g., Reply Br. 13–15. Ms. Youmans’ ac- cusations of misconduct reflect nothing more than her dis- agreement with the outcome. See, e.g., Reply Br. 10–11 (arguing, without support, that “Judge [Kaplan] is unqual- ified and should be investigated for TREASON[sic]”); see also id. at 38–39. We conclude Ms. Youmans failed to es- tablish a due-process deprivation.

On the merits, we agree with the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal. Ms. Youmans alleges the Treasury De- partment committed fraud and waste by paying others (who largely consist of immigrants of African and Latin American descent whom she dubs “adversaries”) more than her. See, e.g., S.Appx. 12–18. Not only does this fail to identify a money-mandating source of law, as the Court of Federal Claims correctly concluded, but it also does not make a non-frivolous allegation against the United States. See Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State v. Oneida Cnty., 414 U.S. 661, 666–67 (1974) (explaining no jurisdiction ex- ists when “basis for petitioners’ assertion” is “completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy”). Ms. Youmans’ claims against state officials and agencies YOUMANS v. US 5 cannot be maintained in the Court of Federal Claims for the same reason. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941). And we agree with the Court of Federal Claims that it lacks jurisdiction to hear complaints about social se- curity benefits. Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

CONCLUSION

We have considered Ms. Youmans’ remaining argu- ments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we af- firm.

AFFIRMED COSTS

No costs.