would be futile, given the weakness of his claims on the merits. Accordingly, the court declines to transfer plaintiff's claims. 2 . To the extent that plaintiff asserts a due process claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, this court lacks jurisdiction. LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed.Cir.1995). 3 . While the Court of Federal Claims is not generally considered to be a "court of the United States" within the meaning of title twenty-eight of the United States Code, the court has jurisdiction to grant or deny applications to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 2503(d) (deeming the Court of Federal Claims to be "a court of the United States” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915); see also Matthews, 72 Fed.Cl. at 277-78
recognizing that congress enacted the court of federal claims technical and procedural improvements act of 1992 authorizing the court to among other things adjudicate applications to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 usc  1915 holding that the court of federal claims had pendant jurisdiction over a state law contract claim that was part of the same case as a claim over which the court of federal claims had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 usc  1498b holding that the court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims whatsoever under the federal criminal code holding that in the case of state procedural default a federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate among other things that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice holding that a questionnaire may be used to assist the court in determining whether cases should be dismissed under 28 usc  1915