Gullet-El v. United States, 666 F. App'x 893

Background

Gullet-El, pro se, filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging the United States breached “Admiralty Civil Contracts” he mailed to federal employees, seeking >$530 million, dismissal of pending criminal/civil cases, and injunctions barring use of his name.
The mailed documents were unsigned by any government official and asserted that silence or non‑renunciation constituted tacit acceptance; they demanded $1 million per unauthorized use of his name and treble damages.
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, reasoning it lacked authority over admiralty claims and Gullet‑El had not identified a substantive legal basis for money damages under the Tucker Act.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed jurisdiction de novo and noted pro se complaints receive liberal construction but remain subject to jurisdictional prerequisites.
The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding Gullet‑El failed to allege an express or implied contract (no offer/acceptance/consideration or authority to bind the government) and that admiralty claims against the government are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal district courts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Tucker Act jurisdiction for money damages	Gullet‑El argued the mailed documents created enforceable contracts obligating the U.S. to pay damages	U.S. argued no valid contract was formed and plaintiff failed to identify a statutory/constitutional source of money damages	No Tucker Act jurisdiction; plaintiff failed to identify a substantive source of money damages enforceable against the U.S.
Formation of contract by mailed unexecuted documents	Gullet‑El claimed silence/tacit acquiescence by federal employees constituted acceptance	U.S. argued no mutual intent, no affirmative acceptance, no consideration, and no agent with authority to bind the government	No contract: absent offer/acceptance/consideration and actual authority, no express or implied‑in‑fact contract existed
Admiralty jurisdiction	Gullet‑El labeled claims as “Civil Contracts in Admiralty” to invoke admiralty remedies	U.S. argued admiralty/maritime jurisdiction over civil admiralty claims against the government lies with federal district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims	Court of Federal Claims lacked admiralty jurisdiction; district courts have exclusive original admiralty jurisdiction
Requests for injunctive relief and dismissal of pending prosecutions	Gullet‑El sought injunctions and dismissal of pending criminal/civil cases based on alleged contract breaches	U.S. pointed to lack of jurisdiction to grant those equitable remedies in this forum absent a cognizable claim	Relief denied for lack of jurisdiction; forum cannot adjudicate or enjoin pending prosecutions on these allegations

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not itself create substantive right to money damages)
Trauma Serv. Grp. v. United States, 104 F.3d 1321 (contract formation with U.S. requires offer, acceptance, consideration)
Barrett Ref. Corp. v. United States, 242 F.3d 1055 (mutual intent to contract required to bind government)
Flexfab, L.L.C. v. United States, 424 F.3d 1254 (government representative must have actual authority to bind the government)
El Centro v. United States, 922 F.2d 816 (no contract where government received no consideration)
El‑Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 378 F.3d 1346 (district courts have exclusive admiralty jurisdiction)
Marine Logistics, Inc. v. England, 265 F.3d 1322 (wholly maritime contract claims belong in district court)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se complaints receive liberal construction)
Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795 (pro se status does not excuse jurisdictional deficiencies)