ORDER

ERIC G. BRUGGINK, District Judge.

Appearing pro se, plaintiff filed her complaint on June 15, 2015. It is apparent on the face of the complaint that we lack jurisdiction over it. We must therefore dismiss it.

Plaintiff asks the court to award her "90,000 Gold and Silver Coin oer violation" of her rights arising under provisions of the United St;tes constitution, the constitution of the State ofconnecticut, and various federal statutes, including the Federal Ton Claims Act. Compl. 19. Her complaint consists almost entirely of strings of legalese quoted from actual sources of law or common legal parlance. It is, however, largely devoid ofany factual allegations. Plaintiff lists Bank ofAmerica and several members of the federal judiciary as defendants and accuses the bank and the judges of committing white-collar crimes and the judges of violating their constitutional oaths, bui she does not allege how.

Although the pro se plaintiffis afforded latitude in her fi lings, see, e.g., Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d i95,799 (Fed. Cir. 1995), and is entitled to a liberal construction of her plea dings, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (requiring that allegations contained in a pro se complaint be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"), the pro se plaintiff is not relieved of her duty to meet the court's jurisdictional requirements, see Henke, 60 F.3d at 799. Further, our rules require that when we "determine[] at any time that [we] lack subject-matter jurisdiction, [we] must dismiss the action." RCFC l2(hx3). Such is the case here.

The Tucker Act, this court's primary grant ofjurisdiction, only gives this court authority to "render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation ofan executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States in cases not sounding in tort." 28 U.S.C. S 1491(a)(1) (2012) (emphasis added). Excluded from this courr's jurisdiction are allegations of tortious conduct, criminal matters, such as "White Collar Crime," Compl. 1, claims based on state constitutions, and suits filed against private parties like the Bank of America. Furthermore, any claims based on the Federal Tort Claims Act are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (2012). Even reading plaintiff's complaint in the light most favorable to her, we are unable to discem a cognizable claim that lies within our jurisdiction.

On June 26,2015, the clerk's office received a document from plaintiff that appears, in large part, to replicate portions ofher original complaint, but it is not clear if it is meant to be an amended complaint. The clerk's office did not file the document for that reason and because it is missing the docket number of this case and a proof of service, both of which are required by our rules for every filing. We have reviewed that document. It would be futile to allow it filed as an amended complaint because we would lack jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the following is ordered: