Case: 23-1088 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 07/12/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LESA J. WERME,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1088
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-00422-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.
______________________
Decided: July 12, 2023
______________________
LESA WERME, Holland, MI, pro se.
DANIEL FALKNOR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM JAMES GRIMALDI, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before HUGHES, LINN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Case: 23-1088 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 07/12/2023
2 WERME v. US
Ms. Lesa Werme filed suit in the United States
Court of Federal Claims alleging that a federal district
court judge effectuated a judicial taking of Ms. Werme’s
property when the judge did not recuse herself from a law-
suit by Ms. Werme alleging that a bank related to the fore-
closure of Ms. Werme’s home committed various torts. The
Court of Federal Claims found that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to consider Ms. Werme’s allegations and dis-
missed the case. We affirm the dismissal.
I
Ms. Werme’s property was foreclosed in 2014.
Ms. Werme thereafter filed a lawsuit challenging the fore-
closure (the foreclosure case) as well as another lawsuit—
separate from the foreclosure case—alleging various torts
against a bank (the torts case). In the foreclosure case, the
foreclosure of Ms. Werme’s property was upheld. See
Werme v. Huntington Nat’l Bank, No. 1:16-CV-479, 2016
WL 4578006, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 2, 2016) (Werme I).
The torts case was heard by a different federal judge.
Compare Werme I, 2016 WL 4578006, at *1, with Werme v.
Mortg. Ctr., LLC, No. 1:15-CV-130, 2018 WL 3458567, at
*1 (W.D. Mich. July 6, 2018) (Werme II). The district court
judge in the torts case resolved the claims in the bank’s fa-
vor in part because the foreclosure had been upheld in the
foreclosure case. Werme II, 2018 WL 3458567, at *3. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit af-
firmed the judgment in the torts case. See Werme v. Mortg.
Ctr., LLC, 764 F. App’x 521 (6th Cir. March 20, 2019).
Ms. Werme then filed a complaint in the Court of
Federal Claims alleging that the district court judge in the
torts case had a financial conflict of interest and effectu-
ated a judicial taking of her property by failing to recuse
herself from the case. The Court of Federal Claims dis-
missed Ms. Werme’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction be-
cause to determine whether a judicial taking occurred, the
court found that it would have to review whether the dis-
trict court judge should have recused herself. The trial
Case: 23-1088 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 07/12/2023
WERME v. US 3
court declined to do so, holding that it lacked jurisdiction
to scrutinize the actions of another tribunal. Accordingly,
the trial court found that it lacked jurisdiction over
Ms. Werme’s complaint. Ms. Werme appeals. We have ju-
risdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
II
We review de novo a Court of Federal Claims’ deci-
sion dismissing a case for lack of subject matter jurisdic-
tion. Diversified Grp. Inc. v. United States, 841 F.3d 975,
980 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The plaintiff bears the burden of es-
tablishing subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance
of the evidence. Id. Although we give pro se plaintiffs more
latitude in their pleadings than a party represented by
counsel, they must still meet jurisdictional requirements.
Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed.
Cir. 1987).
“[T]he Court of Federal Claims does not have juris-
diction to review the decisions of district courts or the
clerks of district courts relating to proceedings before those
courts.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir.
1994). In the context of a judicial takings claim, neither we
nor the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to review
the decision of a United States district court if “resolution
of [a plaintiff’s] judicial takings claim depends on the Court
of Federal Claims’ finding that the [district court’s] deci-
sion was in error.” Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States, 862
F.3d 1370, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
That is the situation we have here. Resolution of
Ms. Werme’s judicial takings claim turns on whether the
district court judge in the torts case had a financial conflict
of interest. See Appellant’s Br. 6; see also S.A. 3. Thus,
Ms. Werme necessarily asks us to consider whether the dis-
trict court judge should have recused herself based on an
alleged financial interest in one of the parties and if the
failure to recuse caused Ms. Werme to be deprived of her
property without just compensation. The Court of Federal
Claims was correct to hold that it lacked jurisdiction to
Case: 23-1088 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 07/12/2023
4 WERME v. US
review such issues. See Joshua, 17 F.3d at 380; Petro-Hunt,
862 F.3d at 1386; Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United
States, 782 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Permitting
parties aggrieved by the decisions of Article III tribunals to
challenge the merits of those decisions in the Court of Fed-
eral Claims would circumvent the statutorily defined ap-
pellate process and severely undercut the orderly
resolution of claims.”). The Court of Federal Claims there-
fore properly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. 1
III
We have considered Ms. Werme’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive and affirm the dismis-
sal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
1 Ms. Werme also argues that the federal district
court judge in the torts case had a conflict of interest be-
cause she owned stock in a company called General Dy-
namics and the individual who granted Ms. Werme title to
the property at issue was potentially a member of a class
action suit involving General Dynamics in 1994. Appel-
lant’s Br. 5–6. This argument is made for the first time on
appeal (compare Appellant’s Br. 5–6, with S.A. 20–24) and
is therefore forfeited. Caterpillar Inc. v. Sturman Indus.,
Inc., 387 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Regardless, we
fail to see a relevant connection between the foreclosure of
Ms. Werme’s property and the class action lawsuit involv-
ing General Dynamics.