Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05097/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05097-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ralph Taylor
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RALPH TAYLOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2014-5097

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:13-cv-00759-SGB, Judge Susan G. 

Braden.

______________________ 

Decided: March 17, 2015

______________________ 

 RALPH TAYLOR, Terre Haute, IN, pro se. 

KENNETH DAVID WOODROW, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by STUART F. DELERY, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN,

JR., STEVEN J. GILLINGHAM. 

______________________ 

Case: 14-5097 Document: 34-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/17/2015
2 TAYLOR v. US

Before MOORE, SCHALL, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION

Ralph Taylor appeals the final decision of the United 

States Court of Federal Claims that granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed his 

complaint. Taylor v. United States, No. 13–759 C (Fed. 

Cl. Apr. 4, 2014). We affirm. 

DISCUSSION

I.

On September 30, 2013, Mr. Taylor, who is an inmate 

at the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, 

Indiana, filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims. 

In the complaint, he alleged that he had submitted to the 

Department of the Treasury an “[i]nvoice” in the amount 

of $405,388,872 for damages he suffered as result of the 

tortious conduct of various officials of the Bureau of 

Prisons, which invoice had not been paid. He also alleged 

that, through a sequence of events which he described, an 

enforceable implied-in-fact contract had arisen between 

him and the government pursuant to which the government was obligated to pay the invoice. In addition, Mr. 

Taylor asserted an illegal exaction on the part of the 

government. 

On April 4, 2014, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Taylor’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction and 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be 

granted. The court explained that, to the extent Mr. 

Taylor’s claims sounded in tort, it lacked jurisdiction to 

consider them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (“The United 

States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to 

render judgment upon any claim against the United 

States founded . . . upon any express or implied contract 

with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated 

Case: 14-5097 Document: 34-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/17/2015
TAYLOR v. US 3

damages in cases not sounding in tort.”). As far as Mr. 

Taylor’s breach of contract claim was concerned, the court 

explained that Mr. Taylor had failed to demonstrate the 

existence of the elements of offer and acceptance and valid 

consideration necessary for an implied-in-fact contract 

with the government. See Kam-Almaz v. United States, 

682 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“An implied-in-fact 

contract with the government requires proof of (1) mutuality of intent, (2) consideration, (3) an unambiguous offer 

and acceptance, and (4) actual authority on the part of the 

government’s representative to bind the government in 

contract.” (quoting Hanlin v. United States, 316 F.3d 

1325, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003))). Finally, citing Norman v. 

United States, 429 F.3d 1081 (Fed Cir. 2005), the court 

held that Mr. Taylor’s complaint failed to allege an illegal 

exaction claim. See id. at 1095 (“To invoke Tucker Act 

jurisdiction over an illegal exaction claim, a claimant 

must demonstrate that the statute or provision causing 

the exaction itself provides, either expressly or by necessary implication, that the remedy for its violation entails 

a return of money unlawfully exacted.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Mr. Taylor timely appealed the dismissal of his complaint. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(3).

II.

We review without deference a decision of the Court of 

Federal Claims dismissing a complaint for lack of jurisdiction and/or for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

could be granted. Nw. La. Fish & Game Pres. Comm’n v. 

United States, 574 F.3d 1386, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bay 

View, Inc. v. United States, 278 F.3d 1259, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 

2001). We have reviewed the decision of the Court of 

Federal Claims in this case. The court’s decision is careful and thorough, addresses all of Mr. Taylor’s arguments, 

Case: 14-5097 Document: 34-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/17/2015
4 TAYLOR v. US

and is free of legal error. It is therefore affirmed in all 

respects.

AFFIRMED

No Costs.

Case: 14-5097 Document: 34-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/17/2015