Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01724/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01724-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Calvin Lydell Dibrell
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

CALVIN LYDELL DIBRELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2024-1724

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:23-cv-01983-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.

______________________

Decided: December 18, 2024

______________________

CALVIN LYDELL DIBRELL, Knoxville, TN, pro se. 

 KELLY GEDDES, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented 

by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY.

 ______________________

Before LOURIE, DYK, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 24-1724 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 12/18/2024
2 DIBRELL v. US

PER CURIAM.

Calvin Lydell Dibrell appeals a decision of the United 

States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because Mr. Dibrell’s

claims fall outside the scope of the Court of Federal Claims’ 

jurisdiction, we affirm.

I

In 2014, Mr. Dibrell claims the police in Knoxville, 

Tennessee improperly conducted a search of his car that led 

to his wrongful imprisonment for four years. Mr. Dibrell 

also alleges that the Knoxville News Sentinel published an 

article about him that contained false and defamatory 

statements regarding criminal allegations against him.

On November 9, 2023, Mr. Dibrell filed a complaint

and corresponding exhibit in the Court of Federal Claims. 

The complaint named a variety of local, state, and federal 

government actors including judges, law enforcement 

officers, and politicians as defendants. It does not name the 

United States as a defendant. And while Mr. Dibrell’s 

complaint cites various legal provisions, it ultimately 

appears to bring two claims: (1) a civil rights violation 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by the Knoxville Police 

Department, and (2) a claim of defamation by the Knoxville 

News Sentinel. S.A. 16–17.

1

The government moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) 

of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims. Dibrell v. 

United States, No. 22-1983C, (Fed. Cl. Jan. 8, 2024), ECF 

No. 5. In its Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the government argued 

Mr. Dibrell’s complaint should be dismissed for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction because “Mr. Dibrell’s 

1 References to S.A. refer to the Supplemental 

Appendix filed with the agency’s brief.

Case: 24-1724 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 12/18/2024
DIBRELL v. US 3

complaint does not explain how his claims fall within the 

scope of the Tucker Act.” Id. at 2.

The Court of Federal Claims agreed and dismissed 

Mr. Dibrell’s complaint, holding that he failed to raise a 

claim within the court’s jurisdiction. S.A. 3–5.

Mr. Dibrell timely appealed. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

II

We review the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Trusted 

Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 

(Fed. Cir. 2011). “[J]urisdiction [must] be established as a 

threshold matter.” Weishan Hongda Aquatic Food Co. v. 

United States, 917 F.3d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019). As the 

plaintiff, Mr. Dibrell bears the burden of establishing 

jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Brandt v. 

United States, 710 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

Although we give pro se plaintiffs more latitude in their 

pleadings than parties represented by counsel, Estelle v. 

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), such leniency does not 

relieve them of jurisdictional requirements, Kelley v. Sec’y, 

U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 

The Court of Federal Claims “is a court of specific civil 

jurisdiction.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 379 

(Fed. Cir. 1994). Under the Tucker Act, the source of the 

Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction, the Court of Federal 

Claims’ jurisdiction is limited to “claims for money 

damages against the United States.” Fisher v. United 

States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) 

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491). The Tucker Act alone does not 

supply an independent source of action; a plaintiff “must 

identify a separate source of substantive law that creates 

the right to money damages.” Id. “[T]he absence of a 

money-mandating source [is] fatal to the court’s 

jurisdiction under the Tucker Act.” Id. at 1173. 

Case: 24-1724 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 12/18/2024
4 DIBRELL v. US

The Court of Federal Claims correctly concluded that it 

lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Dibrell’s complaint. As a 

threshold matter, Mr. Dibrell does not assert any claims 

against the United States. Instead, Mr. Dibrell appears to 

have brought one claim against the Knoxville Police 

Department and one claim against the Knoxville News 

Sentinel. But, as the Court of Federal Claims correctly 

noted, “any claim by Mr. Dibrell that fails to designate the 

United States itself as the defendant is necessarily outside 

[the Court of Federal Claims’] jurisdiction.” S.A. 3 (citing

RCFC 10(a) (providing that the United States must be the 

designated defendant in cases before the Court of Federal 

Claims)). And while Mr. Dibrell’s complaint names 

individuals who are federal officers, there are no factual 

allegations explaining how those federal officers were 

involved in any of the factual allegations or were acting as 

agents of the United States. S.A. 3; see also United States 

v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (The Court of 

Federal Claims is “without jurisdiction of any suit brought 

against private parties[.]”); Burns v. United States, No. 18-

382C, 2018 WL 2996918, at *2 (Fed. Cl. June 15, 2018)

(The Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over 

“private individuals, even where those individuals are 

officers or employees of the government.”); Pease v. United 

States, No. 10-556C, 2011 WL 539116, at *3 (Fed. Cl. 

Feb. 8, 2011) (The Court of Federal Claims lacks 

jurisdiction over “nonfederal parties who are not agents of 

the United States.”).

Even if any of Mr. Dibrell’s allegations could be 

construed to be against the United States itself, the 

underlying nature of the claims place them outside the 

scope of the Tucker Act.

Mr. Dibrell’s first claim, a civil rights violation under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 by the Knoxville Police Department, falls 

within the federal district courts’ exclusive jurisdiction.

See, e.g., Brashear v. United States, 776 F. App’x 679, 683 

(Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[C]ivil rights claims brought pursuant to 

Case: 24-1724 Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 12/18/2024
DIBRELL v. US 5

§ 1983 are under the exclusive jurisdiction of federal 

district courts.”). Thus, the Court of Federal Claims 

correctly concluded it “does not have subject matter 

jurisdiction over civil rights claims arising under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983.” S.A. 3.

Mr. Dibrell’s second claim, a claim of defamation by the 

Knoxville News Sentinel, is a tort law cause of action. See 

Woods v. United States, 122 F. App’x 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 

2004) (“The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited 

jurisdiction, and claims sounding in tort, such as 

defamation, are outside the jurisdiction of the court.”). 

Under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims “lacks 

jurisdiction over tort actions against the United States.” 

Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997)

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)). Thus, the Court of Federal 

Claims correctly concluded it “lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction over Mr. Dibrell’s defamation claim.” S.A. 4.

To the extent Mr. Dibrell’s complaint included claims

alleging either criminal violations or constitutional 

violations against the United States,

2 the Court of Federal 

Claims correctly concluded it lacks jurisdiction over those 

claims.

Regarding any claim that alleges criminal violations, 

the Court of Federal Claims correctly determined it “lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under 

criminal law.” S.A. 4 (citing Dziekonski v. United States, 

120 Fed. Cl. 806, 811 (2015) (“Assuming plaintiff were to 

make out a cognizable criminal violation claim, the Court 

of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to entertain criminal 

matters.”)); see also Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 

2 While Mr. Dibrell’s complaint cites numerous 

provisions of law that includes criminal statutes and 

constitutional provisions, it only brings counts of civil 

rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and defamation.

Case: 24-1724 Document: 19 Page: 5 Filed: 12/18/2024
6 DIBRELL v. US

379–80 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming that the Court of 

Federal Claims had “no jurisdiction to adjudicate any 

claims whatsoever under the federal criminal code[.]”).

Regarding any claim that alleges constitutional 

violations under the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth 

Amendments, the Court of Federal Claims correctly 

concluded it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because 

“neither the Fourth, Sixth, nor Fourteenth Amendment 

contain a money-mandating provision.” S.A. 4; see also 

Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 

(“Because monetary damages are not available for a Fourth 

Amendment violation, the Court of Federal Claims does 

not have jurisdiction over such a violation.”); Drake v. 

United States, 792 F. App’x 916 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The 

Court of Federal Claims, however, does not have 

jurisdiction to render judgment on claims against the 

United States based on the Sixth Amendment because it is 

not money mandating.”); LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 

1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (concluding that the Due 

Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth 

Amendment do not provide “a sufficient basis for 

jurisdiction because they do not mandate payment of 

money by the government”). And the Court of Federal 

Claims correctly determined it lacks jurisdiction under the 

Fifth Amendment, “other than pursuant to the Takings 

Clause, which is not a provision under which Mr. Dibrell 

brings his claims.” S.A. 4 (citing Ogden v. United States, 

61 Fed. Cl. 44, 47 (2004) ("[T]he Court of Federal Claims 

has clear jurisdiction only with respect to constitutional 

claims founded on the Takings Clause of the Fifth 

Amendment, as other amendments to the Constitution do 

not, of themselves, mandate payment for violations."); see 

also LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1995)

(holding the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment 

is not a sufficient basis for jurisdiction).

III

Case: 24-1724 Document: 19 Page: 6 Filed: 12/18/2024
DIBRELL v. US 7

We have considered the remainder of Mr. Dibrell’s 

arguments and find them unpersuasive. Because

Mr. Dibrell’s claims are outside the jurisdiction of the Court 

of Federal Claims, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 24-1724 Document: 19 Page: 7 Filed: 12/18/2024