Taebel v. United States ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    MITCHELL T. TAEBEL,
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    UNITED STATES,
    Defendant-Appellee
    ______________________
    2018-1475
    ______________________
    Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
    Claims in No. 1:18-cv-00025-VJW, Judge Victor J. Wolski.
    ______________________
    Decided: July 16, 2018
    ______________________
    MITCHELL T. TAEBEL, Long Beach, IN, pro se.
    DANIEL B. VOLK, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
    Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
    ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
    ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR., LOREN MISHA PREHEIM,
    CHAD A. READLER.
    ______________________
    Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
    2                                   TAEBEL v. UNITED STATES
    PER CURIAM.
    Mitchell Taebel appeals the U.S. Court of Federal
    Claims’ (“Claims Court”) dismissal of his complaint for
    lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the Claims
    Court did not err in dismissing the complaint, we affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    On December 27, 2017, Mr. Taebel filed a one-
    paragraph complaint in the Claims Court alleging that
    the U.S. Department of Justice is unconstitutional and
    objecting to the enforcement of federal criminal laws not
    listed in the U.S. Constitution. The Claims Court dis-
    missed the complaint sua sponte for lack of subject matter
    jurisdiction. It concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over
    Mr. Taebel’s complaint because he failed to allege that the
    United States owed him money damages and his claims
    were not based on a constitutional provision that would
    entitle him to compensation from the United States.
    Mr. Taebel timely appealed. We have jurisdiction
    pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1295
    (a)(3).
    DISCUSSION
    We review the Claims Court’s dismissal for lack of
    subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Trusted Integration,
    Inc. v. United States, 
    659 F.3d 1159
    , 1163 (Fed. Cir.
    2011). Mr. Taebel bears the burden of establishing juris-
    diction by a preponderance of the evidence. 
    Id.
     We accept
    as true all undisputed facts asserted in his complaint and
    draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. 
    Id.
     As Mr.
    Taebel is a pro se appellant, we liberally construe his
    filings. Erickson v. Pardus, 
    551 U.S. 89
    , 94 (2007).
    The jurisdiction of the Claims Court is set forth in the
    Tucker Act, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1491
    (a), but the Tucker Act does
    not itself create a right enforceable against the United
    States. Alvarado Hosp., LLC v. Price, 
    868 F.3d 983
    , 991
    (Fed. Cir. 2017). To establish Claims Court jurisdiction
    TAEBEL v. UNITED STATES                                 3
    under the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a substan-
    tive law that creates the right to money damages against
    the United States. 
    Id.
    The Claims Court properly dismissed Mr. Taebel’s
    complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Taebel’s complaint
    fails to allege that the United States owes him any money
    or identify any money-mandating provision that would
    confer jurisdiction. On appeal, Mr. Taebel argues the
    Department of Justice is unconstitutional and a national
    security threat. He seeks an injunction “to close down
    unconstitutional elements of this Government.” He does
    not allege the United States owes him money or identify a
    money-mandating provision. The Claims Court did not
    err by dismissing his complaint because Mr. Taebel failed
    to allege facts and identify law that would establish
    jurisdiction.
    We have considered Mr. Taebel’s remaining argu-
    ments and find them unpersuasive.
    CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Claims
    Court is affirmed.
    AFFIRMED
    COSTS
    No costs.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-1475

Filed Date: 7/16/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/16/2018