Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02432/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02432-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 515
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ERIC EMANUEL TAYLOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-2432

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:16-cv-00837-MCW, Judge Mary Ellen 

Coster Williams.

______________________ 

Decided: November 9, 2016

______________________ 

ERIC EMANUEL TAYLOR, Portsmouth, VA, pro se.

DAVID MICHAEL KERR, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., 

DEBORAH A. BYNUM. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, BRYSON, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-2432 Document: 11-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/09/2016
2 TAYLOR v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Eric Emanuel Taylor appeals a final decision of the 

Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint seeking 

damages from the United States based on alleged violations of the Fifth Amendment double jeopardy clause and 

section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as unjust 

conviction and imprisonment. We affirm.

I 

In 2006, a grand jury in the Circuit Court of Portsmouth, Virginia, returned an indictment charging Mr. 

Taylor with malicious wounding, a class three felony 

under Va. Code § 18.2-51. Later that year, the circuit 

court found him guilty of unlawful wounding, a class six 

felony under the same provision. The court sentenced 

him to five years’ incarceration. 

Ten years later, Mr. Taylor filed an action in the 

Court of Federal Claims asserting claims arising from his 

conviction. He alleged (1) a violation of the Fifth 

Amendment’s double jeopardy clause because he was 

convicted of a lesser offense based on the indictment and 

evidence supporting the greater offense, (2) an entitlement to a pension based on section 4 of the Fourteenth 

Amendment for the “right[] to insurrection and rebel 

against any United States citizen’s entitlement of double 

jeopardy clause protection,” and (3) a claim for damages 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a violation of the Fifth 

Amendment’s double jeopardy clause. Also included in 

his pleading were mentions of unjust conviction and 

imprisonment and pain and suffering. Mr. Taylor sought 

damages in the amount of a “zillion dollars.”

In a final decision issued on August 1, 2016, the trial 

court dismissed Mr. Taylor’s complaint. Based on the

limited authority granted to the court under the Tucker 

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, the court concluded that it had no

jurisdiction over Mr. Taylor’s constitutional claims beCase: 16-2432 Document: 11-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/09/2016
TAYLOR v. US 3

cause neither the double jeopardy clause nor section 4 of 

the Fourteenth Amendment is a “money-mandating” 

provision, citing United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 

216-17 (1983) (“[T]he claimant must demonstrate that the 

source of substantive law he relies upon can fairly be 

interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal 

Government for the damages sustained.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court also determined that 

claims of pain and suffering “sound[] in tort” and therefore are excluded from the scope of the Tucker Act. 28 

U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The court next decided that it had no 

jurisdiction over any claim arising under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. As for a possible claim of unjust conviction and 

imprisonment under 28 U.S.C. § 1495, the court determined that Mr. Taylor had not put forth the allegations 

and proof required by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2513. Finally, 

to the extent Mr. Taylor challenged the validity of his 

state court conviction, the court ruled that its jurisdiction 

did not extend to review of criminal convictions. 

On appeal, Mr. Tucker raises only the two constitutional claims and the claim of unjust conviction and 

imprisonment.1

1 In a supplemental memorandum filed in this 

court after the completion of briefing, Mr. Taylor challenged the dismissal of his section 1983 claim, which he 

did not raise in his opening or reply brief on appeal. 

Apart from Mr. Taylor’s waiver of that issue by failing to 

raise it earlier, the trial court was clearly correct in 

holding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the section 1983 

claim. Congress has authorized federal district courts to 

hear such claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a), but has granted no 

such authority to the Court of Federal Claims. 

 

Case: 16-2432 Document: 11-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/09/2016
4 TAYLOR v. US

II

The Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction under 

the Tucker Act to hear “any claim against the United 

States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of 

Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or 

upon any express or implied contract with the United 

States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages not 

sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). “[I]n order to 

come within the jurisdictional reach and the waiver of the 

Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a separate source of 

substantive law that creates the right to money damages.” 

Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 

2005).

The trial court properly concluded that its jurisdiction

does not extend to Mr. Taylor’s constitutional claims. 

Neither the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment nor section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment mandates the payment of money by the government; 

therefore, neither claim falls within the waiver of the 

Tucker Act. Jones v. Caldera, 159 F.3d 573, 581 (Fed. 

Cir. 1998) (double jeopardy clause is not moneymandating); Harris v. United States, No. 2006-5137, 2007 

WL 706856, at *1 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment is not money-mandating).

The court also committed no error in dismissing Mr. 

Taylor’s claim of unjust conviction and imprisonment 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1495, which gives the Court of 

Federal Claims jurisdiction over a claim “for damages by 

any person unjustly convicted of an offense against the 

United States and imprisoned.” To begin with, Mr. Taylor 

was convicted of an offense against the Commonwealth of 

Virginia, not the United States. Moreover, under 28 

U.S.C. § 2513(a), any person suing under section 1495 

must allege and prove, among other things, that his 

conviction was set aside because he was found not guilty 

or pardoned based on innocence, and that he did not 

Case: 16-2432 Document: 11-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/09/2016
TAYLOR v. US 5

commit the charged acts or that the acts did not constitute a criminal offense. In addition, proof of those allegations must be by “a certificate of the court or pardon 

wherein such facts [of innocence] are alleged to appear, 

and other evidence thereof shall not be received.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2513(b). Mr. Taylor did not set forth any of the 

necessary allegations, and he did not provide the required 

proof in the form of a court certificate or pardon. 

Finally, the trial court accurately stated that any other form of attack on his conviction would not fall within 

the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1491; see also Cochrun v. United States, 621 F. 

App’x 655, 656 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]he [Court of Federal 

Claims] does not have the jurisdiction to review state 

court convictions.”); Jones v. United States, 440 F. App’x 

916, 918 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he [Court of Federal Claims] 

correctly stated that it has no jurisdiction over criminal 

matters generally.”). 

We have considered Mr. Taylor’s remaining arguments but find them unpersuasive.2

AFFIRMED

No costs.

2 Among these, Mr. Taylor argues repeatedly in his 

briefing on appeal that the trial court erred in captioning 

this case Taylor v. United States. According to Mr. Taylor, the caption should read Taylor with but not versus

United States, which is the caption he used in his initial 

pleading below. Because Mr. Taylor is seeking a judgment against the United States that would be paid by the 

United States, the caption used by the Court of Federal 

Claims and this court is correct. In any event, the correctness of the caption has no effect on the merits or the 

outcome of Mr. Taylor’s appeal. 

 

Case: 16-2432 Document: 11-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/09/2016