Sheryl Taylor v. United States
114 Fed. Cl. 185
Fed. Cl.2014Background
- Pro se plaintiff Sheryl Taylor sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims alleging the EEOC (and its Chair) denied her federally funded counsel, withheld federal funds, denied a hearing/review of a mixed-case EEOC complaint, and thereby caused a constitutional "taking" and due-process violations; she sought $50,000 plus declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Taylor repeatedly requested appointment/assignment of counsel and that federal funds be released or redistributed to secure counsel; she asserted negligence and constitutional claims (First, Fifth, Fourteenth).
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (RCFC 12(b)(1)) and for failure to state a claim (RCFC 12(b)(6)), arguing tort and non-money-mandating constitutional claims are outside the Court of Federal Claims, and that the takings claim was not pleaded.
- The court reviewed Taylor’s pro se filings liberally but emphasized that pro se status does not relieve plaintiff of the burden to establish jurisdiction and plausible claims.
- The court found tort/negligence claims, First Amendment petition arguments, and Due Process/Equal Protection claims are not money‑mandating sources for Tucker Act jurisdiction; Taylor failed to allege a cognizable property interest for a Fifth Amendment takings claim.
- The court denied Taylor’s repeated motions for appointment of counsel, concluded appointment would not cure jurisdictional or pleading defects, granted the government’s motion, and dismissed the complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court's jurisdiction under Tucker Act | Taylor contends constitutional violations and government refusal to provide federal funds/counsel entitle her to money damages against U.S. | Govt: negligence and constitutional claims (except a proper money-mandating source) are outside Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction; takings claim not pleaded. | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over tort and non-money-mandating constitutional claims; takings claim fails to state a claim. |
| Availability of tort/ negligence claims here | Taylor alleges negligence and intentional interference caused damages. | Govt: negligence claims sound in tort and are precluded from this court under the Tucker Act. | Court lacks jurisdiction over tort/negligence claims; dismissed. |
| Whether First, Fifth (due process), and Fourteenth Amendment claims are money-mandating | Taylor asserts violations deprived her of funds/counsel and seek compensation. | Govt: Those constitutional provisions (except a properly pleaded takings claim) do not mandate payment of money and so cannot confer Tucker Act jurisdiction. | First, Due Process, and Equal Protection claims are not money-mandating; jurisdiction lacking for these claims. |
| Validity of Fifth Amendment takings claim based on denial of federally funded counsel | Taylor argues denial of federally funded counsel and funds was a taking requiring compensation. | Govt: Taylor did not allege a cognizable property interest or a transfer/appropriation of property/funds constituting a taking. | Court: No legally cognizable property interest alleged (no right to appointed counsel in civil case); takings claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (pro se pleadings entitled to liberal construction)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (labels/conclusions insufficient; pleadings must contain factual enhancement)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be forfeited or waived)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1976) (Tucker Act jurisdiction requires money-mandating source)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Due Process and Equal Protection not money-mandating for Tucker Act)
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel in most civil cases)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1982) (definition of compensable property interest for takings)
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (takings analysis and purposes of Fifth Amendment)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1941) (claims in Court of Federal Claims must be against United States)