Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05118/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05118-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Grantham
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CHRISTOPHER GRANTHAM,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2014-5118

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:13-cv-00981-LB, Judge Lawrence J. 

Block.

______________________ 

Decided: February 6, 2015 

______________________ 

 CHRISTOPHER GRANTHAM, Macon, Georgia, pro se. 

 LAUREN S. MOORE, Commercial Litigation, Civil 

Branch, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by

JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, Jr., KIRK T.

MANHARDT. 

______________________ 

Case: 14-5118 Document: 35-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/06/2015
2 GRANTHAM v. US

Before LOURIE, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Christopher Grantham appeals the United States 

Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of his suit for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction and for failing to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons provided below, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

In December 2013, Mr. Grantham filed a complaint in 

the Court of Federal Claims alleging wrongful conduct on 

the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). According 

to Mr. Grantham’s complaint, in November 2009, Mr. 

Grantham filed documents with the IRS seeking to “capture the bonds filed in Plaintiff’s name and social security 

number.” The IRS refused to honor that filing and accused

Mr. Grantham of filing a frivolous return. Mr. Grantham 

asserts that he then filed an “affidavit of truth” and a 

“conditional acceptance for proof of claim.” According to 

Mr. Grantham, by not responding to these filings, the IRS 

allegedly “came to be in agreement” with his claims. 

Mr. Grantham asserts that he then filed an administrative tort claim at the IRS. The IRS denied the claim, 

but did not, according to Mr. Grantham, “rebut each issue 

in the claim.” Mr. Grantham asserts that this failure to

rebut each issue indicates that the IRS agreed with his

claims, and further resulted in Mr. Grantham obtaining a 

lien against the IRS. Mr. Grantham then filed the present 

action in the Court of Federal Claims. 

The trial court interpreted Mr. Grantham’s complaint 

as claiming violation of his rights under the Due Process 

Clause of the Fifth Amendment and breach of contract, 

and Mr. Grantham does not appear to challenge that 

interpretation. The Government moved to dismiss under 

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims 

Case: 14-5118 Document: 35-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/06/2015
GRANTHAM v. US 3

(RCFC) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and under 

RCFC 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted. The trial court granted the Government’s motion, holding that it does not have jurisdiction over Mr. Grantham’s Due Process claim because the 

Due Process Clause is not a money-mandating provision. 

The court further held that Mr. Grantham’s complaint did 

not include sufficient allegations to state a claim for 

breach of contract. 

Mr. Grantham timely appealed. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). 

DISCUSSION

We review de novo the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and review 

its underlying factual findings for clear error. See Ferreiro 

v. United States, 350 F.3d 1318, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 

(citations omitted). We also review de novo the dismissal 

for failure to state a claim under RCFC 12(b)(6). KamAlmaz v. United States, 682 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 

2012).

On appeal, Mr. Grantham’s informal brief appears to 

allege that sections 701–706 of Administrative Procedure 

Act (APA) confer jurisdiction on the trial court over his 

Due Process claim. The APA does not, however, confer 

jurisdiction on a court that does not already possess it. 

Nat’l Corn Growers Ass’n v. Baker, 840 F.2d 1547, 1559 

(Fed. Cir. 1988) (internal citation omitted). The Court of 

Federal Claims’ jurisdiction chiefly arises under the 

Tucker Act, which states that “[t]he United States Court 

of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon 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 in cases not sounding 

Case: 14-5118 Document: 35-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/06/2015
4 GRANTHAM v. US

in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (2012). We have interpreted the Tucker Act as requiring a claim for relief under a 

money-mandating provision. Greenlee Cnty., Ariz. v. 

United States, 487 F.3d 871, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The 

trial court therefore correctly held that it does not possess 

jurisdiction over Mr. Grantham’s Due Process claim 

because the Due Process clause is not a money-mandating 

provision. LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 

(Fed. Cir. 1995).

The trial court dismissed Mr. Grantham’s breach of 

contract claim because Mr. Grantham’s complaint does 

not contain sufficient allegations to state a claim for 

breach of contract. Mr. Grantham argues that the trial 

court erred because the IRS’s silence gave rise to an 

implied-in-fact contract. An implied-in-fact contract is 

based on a meeting of the minds inferred from the conduct 

of the parties. City of Cincinnati v. United States, 153 

F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). Such a contract at least requires an exchange of 

consideration. Id. Because Mr. Grantham’s complaint 

does not allege an exchange of consideration, the trial 

court correctly held that the complaint does not allege 

sufficient facts to show an entitlement to relief for a 

breach of an implied-in-fact contract claim. Bell Atl. Corp. 

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007). 

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, we affirm the Court of Federal 

Claims’ dismissal of Mr. Grantham’s suit for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-5118 Document: 35-2 Page: 4 Filed: 02/06/2015