Lisa Ann Deweese v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LISA ANN DEWEESE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1349
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-01972-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before DYK, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
The United States moves for summary affirmance.
Lisa Ann Deweese has not filed a response though she has
filed her opening brief.
Ms. Deweese filed a complaint at the United States
Court of Federal Claims alleging “Child Protective Ser-
vices” has violated various statutes including the False
Case: 26-1349 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 03/20/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

DEWEESE v. US 2
Claims Act. This complaint appears to be related to her
earlier complaint, dismissed for lack of subject matter ju-
risdiction, which sought relief based on child custody pro-
ceedings in New Mexico regarding Ms. Deweese’s child.
See Deweese v. United States, No. 2024-1791, 2024 WL
5002116 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2024). In this case, the Court of
Federal Claims similarly dismissed Ms. Deweese’s com-
plaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Summary affirmance is appropriate where the judg-
ment is “so clearly correct as a matter of law that no sub-
stantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal
exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). Here, the Court of Federal Claims was clearly
correct in dismissing Ms. Deweese’s complaint at least be-
cause she has failed to raise any non-frivolous allegations
against the United States. See United States v. Sherwood,
312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (“[I]f the relief sought is against
others than the United States the suit as to them must be
ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court[.]”). As that
court explained, Ms. Deweese’s complaint is directed
against “Child Protective Services,” which is not a federal
entity. See Dkt. No. 7 at 2–3 & n.2. Instead, she continues
to seek relief against state agencies and officials, which the
Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to consider. See
Deweese, No. 2024-1791, 2024 WL 5002116 at *2 (citing 28
U.S.C. § 1491).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted, and the Court of Federal
Claims’s judgment is summarily affirmed.
(2) Any other pending motions are denied.
Case: 26-1349 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 03/20/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

DEWEESE v. US 3
(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
March 20, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 26-1349 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 03/20/2026

-- 3 of 3 --