113 Fed.Cl. at 173. Accordingly, plaintiffs demands for declaratory relief are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff also contends in his complaint that the New Jersey District Court did not have subject matter or personal jurisdiction over him. To the extent that plaintiff is alleging that the New Jersey District Court erred in exercising jurisdiction in the criminal action brought against him, such allegations also do not establish jurisdiction in this court. The Court of Federal Claims does not have authority to review decisions issued by judges of the United States District Courts. See Vereda, LTDA v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2001); Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 379 (Fed.Cir.1994); see also Cooper v. United States, 104 Fed.Cl. 306, 312 (2012) (<HOLDING>) (internal citations omitted); Mendes v. United
holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over tax claims for declaratory or equitable relief holding that the court does not have jurisdiction to review per curiam decisions of the district courts of appeal that merely affirm with citations to cases not pending review in this court holding federal district courts do not have jurisdiction  over challenges to state court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state courts action was unconstitutional review of those decisions may be had only in this united states supreme court holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over plain tiffs claims because the court may review neither criminal matters nor the decisions of district courts holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts