ORDER OF DISMISSAL

NANCY B. FIRESTONE, District Judge.

The court is in receipt of the complaint filed on October 14, 2015 by pro se plaintiff Eric Richardson. Mr. Richardson, who is incarcerated in Schuylkill Federal Conectional Institution in Minersville, Pennsylvania, claims that the United States District Cou( for the District of Maryland ("the district court") and the United States Attomey's Office for the District of Maryland ("the U.S. Attomey's Office") violated his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. $$ 1985 and 1986 based on an "unlawful restraint of liberty." Compl. 2.1 Mr. Richardson asserts that this court has jurisdiction to hear his case under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. $1491, and the Administrative Procedure Act ('APA"), 5 U.S.C. $706.2

Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing the court's subj ect matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See. e.g., Estes Express Lines v. United States, 739 F.3d 689, 692 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d746,748 (Fed. Cir. 19S8)). Although pro se plaintiffs are held to less stringent pleading standards, they must still demonstrate that the court has jurisdiction to hear their claim. See Matthews v. United States, 750 F.3d 1320,1322 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation omitted); Mora v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 713, 715 (2014) (citation omitted). Under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims, the court must dismiss an action "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction."

The court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Richardson's complaint for three reasons. First, this court "lacks jurisdiction to consider claims which amount to collateral attacks on criminal convictions." Judd v. United States, No. l5-586C, 2015 WL 6684540, at * I (Fed. Cl. Oct. 30, 2015) (quoting Beadles v. United States, I l5 Fed' Cl. 242,245 (2014). This court also "has no jurisdiction to review the merits of a decision rendered by a federal district court." Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United States, 782 F.3d 1345, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). Mr. Richardson's claims would require this court to review the actions of the district court and consider the validity of his criminal conviction.

Second, it is well-settled that this court lacks jurisdiction over civil rights actions, including Mr. Richardson's claims arising under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986. See Colbertv. United States, No. 2014-5029, 2015 WL 2343578, at *1 n.l (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2015); see also Ilaw v. United States, 121 Fed. Cl. 408, 426 (2015).

Finally, the Tucker Act grants this court jurisdiction over claims against the govemment that are founded on the Constitution, laws, treaties, or contracts of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(l). However, the Tucker Act does not create substantive rights; it only waives sovereign immunity for claims premised on other sources of law, such as statutes or contracts, that "can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Govemment for the damages sustained." Jan's Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. FAA, 525 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216-17 (1983). The APA is not a money-mandating statute, see. e.s., Wopsock v. Natchees, 454 F.3d 1327,1333 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing 5 U.S.C. $702), and does not authorize review of federal court decisions. See 5 U.S.C. $701(bX1XB) (excluding federal courts from the APA's definition of "agency"); Ealy v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 801, 805 (2015). In sum, the APA cannot provide a basis for this court to hear Mr. Richardson's claims.

Therefore, because this court lacks jurisdiction, Mr. Richardson's complaint is DISMISSED.3 The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.