Kirell Taylor v. United States
113 Fed. Cl. 171
| Fed. Cl. | 2013Background
- Kirell Taylor, a pro se incarcerated prisoner serving life without parole, sued the United States after USCIS denied his request to renounce U.S. citizenship (denial based on requirement that renunciation occur outside the U.S.).
- Taylor sought $25 million for alleged civil rights violations, racial discrimination, and constitutional violations, plus declaratory and injunctive relief declaring him expatriate/stateless and ordering his removal from state custody.
- The Government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing Taylor failed to identify a money‑mandating source under the Tucker Act and that the Court lacks jurisdiction over civil‑rights and tort/Bivens claims.
- The Court reviewed jurisdictional prerequisites under the Tucker Act: jurisdiction exists only where a substantive, money‑mandating right to recover from the United States is identified (constitutional provisions, statutes, regulations, or contracts).
- Taylor characterized State Department letters and the Constitution as contracts entitling him to money damages; the Court found no valid contract or other money‑mandating source pleaded.
- The Court also held it lacked jurisdiction over civil‑rights claims (including Title VII and Bivens) and could not grant standalone equitable relief because the Tucker Act does not independently confer jurisdiction for injunctive/declaratory relief absent a money judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has Tucker Act jurisdiction to hear Taylor's money‑damage claims | Taylor contends State Department letters and the Constitution create contractual or other substantive rights to money | Gov't: Taylor identifies no money‑mandating statute, contract, or constitutional source permitting damages here | Dismissed: No Tucker Act jurisdiction; plaintiff failed to identify a money‑mandating source |
| Whether the State Department letters or the Constitution constitute a contract with the U.S. | Taylor alleges the letters and Constitution are contracts entitling him to relief | Gov't: Letters are informational, not contracts; Constitution is not a contract with the U.S. | Rejected: No valid contract found |
| Whether the Court may hear civil‑rights or Bivens claims for damages against the U.S. | Taylor asserts civil‑rights and Bivens claims for racial discrimination and constitutional violations | Gov't: Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over Title VII and Bivens actions against the United States | Dismissed: Court lacks jurisdiction over civil‑rights and Bivens claims |
| Whether the Court can grant declaratory/injunctive relief independent of money judgment | Taylor seeks declaratory and injunctive relief (ex: recognition as stateless, removal from state custody) | Gov't: Tucker Act does not provide independent jurisdiction for equitable relief absent money judgment | Rejected: Equitable relief unavailable because no underlying money claim within jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Ainslie v. United States, 355 F.3d 1371 (2004) (standard for accepting allegations on motion to dismiss)
- Godwin v. United States, 338 F.3d 1374 (2003) (pleading standards in this court)
- Hampel v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 235 (2011) (pro se litigants held to jurisdictional requirements)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (pro se pleading standard principles)
- Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746 (1988) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction by preponderance)
- Hamlet v. United States, 63 F.3d 1097 (1995) (Tucker Act requires money‑mandating source)
- Osborn v. United States, 47 Fed. Cl. 224 (2000) (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over Title VII and other civil‑rights statutes)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (establishes Bivens remedy against federal agents)
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (1997) (no Tucker Act jurisdiction for Bivens claims in this court)
- James v. Caldera, 159 F.3d 573 (1998) (Tucker Act does not independently confer jurisdiction for equitable relief)