Powell v. United States , 151 F. App'x 938 ( 2005 )

NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition
is not citable as precedent. It is a public record.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
05-5098
DAVID POWELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
___________________________
DECIDED: October 5, 2005
___________________________
Before MICHEL,Chief Judge, BRYSON, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION
David Powell appeals from an order of the United States Court of Federal Claims
in case No. 04-1201C, dismissing his action for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On July 22, 2004, Mr. Powell filed a complaint asserting claims under the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, numerous federal and
state statutes, and various common law theories. Mr. Powell’s complaint contained a
wide range of claims, including allegations of tort, intellectual property theft, human
rights violations, invasion of privacy, assault, witness tampering, age discrimination in
employment, mail fraud, and medical malpractice. He named as defendants various
federal and non-federal government entities, as well as corporations and individuals.1
He sought various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages for
pain and suffering; attorney fees; reinstatement of employment with the Miami Dade
County Housing Agency, from which he was terminated in 1999; “bankruptcy relief to
receive judgment on record”; an order prohibiting practices and patterns of
discrimination, bias, and “legal prejudice”; and “any other equitable relief the court
deems just.”
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Powell’s complaint for lack of
jurisdiction. In light of the limited scope of the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), the
court held that it lacked jurisdiction over all claims asserted against defendants other
than the United States, all tort claims, and all claims involving federal statutes that are
not money-mandating. With respect to his constitutional claims, the court held that the
provisions other than the Fifth Amendment were not money-mandating. As to his
claims under the Fifth Amendment, the court ruled that Mr. Powell failed to “identify
what property allegedly was taken by the Government” and therefore “does not allege
1
The federal entities included the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the Postal Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the
Department of Labor. The non-federal entities include the States of Ohio and Florida;
the County Commissioner of Jefferson County, Ohio; the City of Steubenville, Ohio; the
Village of Mingo Junction, Ohio; Dade County, Florida; and the City of Miami, Florida.
The trial court found, however, that “[i]t is not clear from the Amended Complaint what
claim is asserted against which defendant.”
05-5098 2
the facts sufficient to make an evaluation whether a property interest existed or whether
a taking occurred.”
DISCUSSION
Mr. Powell’s brief on appeal contains 68 numbered paragraphs that list numerous
legal doctrines and statutes. Based on that list, we infer that Mr. Powell contends that
the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over (1) his claims against non-federal
entities; (2) his tort claims; and (3) his claims based on federal statutes. We disagree
with Mr. Powell’s argument on each point.
First, the trial court correctly found that the Tucker Act mandates dismissal of all
claims asserted against non-federal entities. The Tucker Act states that the Court of
Federal Claims “shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491. It does not give the court jurisdiction over claims
against defendants other than the United States. Likewise, as to Mr. Powell’s tort
claims, we uphold the trial court’s decision because the Tucker Act makes an express
exception for tort claims, stating that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction in
“cases not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491; see Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d
621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We also disagree with Mr. Powell’s argument that the Court of Federal Claims
has jurisdiction over his claims based on particular federal statutes. The invocation of
federal statutes is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims;
rather, as this court has held, “the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims is limited to
cases in which the Constitution or a federal statute requires the payment of money
damages as compensation for their violation.” Brown, 105 F.3d at 623. As the trial
05-5098 3
court found, however, none of the statutes that Mr. Powell cites can be interpreted to
require the payment of money for its violation. Those statutes therefore do not provide
an independent jurisdictional basis for the Court of Federal Claims.
Mr. Powell does not seem to press his constitutional claims on appeal. In any
event, however, the trial court correctly dismissed those claims, most of which were
directed to provisions that are not money-mandating. Although the Fifth Amendment
can serve as a money-mandating provision with respect to claims under the Just
Compensation Clause, Mr. Powell’s complaint contained no allegation of what, if any,
property interest was allegedly taken by the federal government. The trial court
therefore did not err in ruling that the complaint failed to state a claim of a taking under
the Fifth Amendment.
Finally, in his complaint and on appeal, Mr. Powell appears to seek an order
requiring the production of his parents’ tax returns for the years 1962-2001. The trial
court denied his claim because Mr. Powell failed to provide a reason that he needs
those returns, either in connection with this litigation or otherwise. On appeal, Mr.
Powell has provided not valid reason for seeking the production of those tax returns.
Therefore, the trial court was correct to dismiss Mr. Powell’s claims on that issue.
05-5098 4