Angeliina Lynn Lawson v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ANGELIINA LYNN LAWSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1368
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-02097-RAH, Judge Richard A. Hertling.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Angeliina Lynn Lawson appeals from the final judg-
ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismiss-
ing her case for lack of jurisdiction. In response to this
court’s show cause order, the United States urges the court
to summarily affirm the decision, while Ms. Lawson asks
this court to allow the appeal to proceed.
Case: 26-1368 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 04/21/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

LAWSON v. US 2
Ms. Lawson’s present suit filed at the Court of Federal
Claims followed her prior unsuccessful attempt to remove
a Kansas state-court custody proceeding to federal court.
Her complaint seeks $50,000,000 based on alleged “federal
nonaction” by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit in her removal appeal for “violation of access,
due process, and ADA obligations.” ECF No. 10 at 20. The
Court of Federal Claims dismissed and certified under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in
good faith. Ms. Lawson, nevertheless, appealed.
Summary affirmance is appropriate here because “no
substantial question” exists as to whether Ms. Lawson’s
complaint was properly dismissed. Joshua v. United
States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Ms. Lawson’s al-
legations of wrongdoing were directed at state and local ac-
tors in the custody proceeding and, more generally, at the
Tenth Circuit for not granting her requested relief. The
Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction
and, under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), that ju-
risdiction extends only to “money judgments in suits
brought for that relief against the United States.” United
States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941). Ms. Lawson’s
claims clearly fall outside of that jurisdiction. See id.; see
also Innovair Aviation Ltd. v. United States, 632 F.3d 1336,
1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that the Court of Federal
Claims “cannot entertain a taking[s] claim that requires
the court to scrutinize the actions of’ another tribunal” (in-
ternal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
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.
Case: 26-1368 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 04/21/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

LAWSON v. US 3
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
April 21, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 26-1368 Document: 12 Page: 3 Filed: 04/21/2026

-- 3 of 3 --