Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05122/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05122-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Byron Joseph Bedell
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BYRON JOSEPH BEDELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5122

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00374-PEC, Chief Judge Patricia E. 

Campbell-Smith.

______________________ 

Decided: February 10, 2016

______________________ 

BYRON JOSEPH BEDELL, Florence, CO, pro se.

ALEXIS J. ECHOLS, 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., BRIAN 

A. MIZOGUCHI. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-5122 Document: 34-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/10/2016
2 BEDELL v. US

PER CURIAM.

Byron Bedell filed suit against the United States Department of Justice in the Court of Federal Claims alleging various violations by the Department. Mr. Bedell’s

allegations are focused on a claim of kidnapping and false 

imprisonment and a claim for contract enforcement. The 

trial court dismissed Mr. Bedell’s complaint for failure to 

state a claim for which relief may be granted. We affirm.

I 

Mr. Bedell is presently incarcerated by the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons, an agency within the Department. 

The Bureau took Mr. Bedell into custody after a felony 

conviction in 2010, for which Mr. Bedell was sentenced to 

106 months in prison. Mr. Bedell alleges, and the Department does not contest, that he did not consent to this 

incarceration.

While incarcerated, Mr. Bedell sent unsolicited proposed settlement contracts to the Bureau and the Civil 

Division, Torts Branch of the Department. Mr. Bedell 

designed these contracts to resolve his disputes with the 

Department, including a payment of $225 million to 

Mr. Bedell and his release from custody. Mr. Bedell 

followed-up with numerous communications stating that 

the Department would be deemed to have accepted the 

terms of the settlement contracts if the Department did 

not respond to the contrary. Neither the Bureau nor the 

Torts Branch responded to any of Mr. Bedell’s correspondences.

Following these events, Mr. Bedell filed suit against 

the Department in the Court of Federal Claims. 

Mr. Bedell alleged in his complaint that his incarceration 

constituted kidnapping and false imprisonment by the 

Bureau. Mr. Bedell also alleged that the Department had 

accepted the settlement contract by not rejecting it, and 

Case: 15-5122 Document: 34-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/10/2016
BEDELL v. US 3

that the Department thus should be required to make 

payment and other performance thereunder. 

The trial court dismissed Mr. Bedell’s complaint for 

failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. 

Mr. Bedell appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(3).

II 

“In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a 

claim, a complaint must allege facts ‘plausibly suggesting 

(not merely consistent with)’ a showing of entitlement to 

relief.” Acceptance Ins. Cos., Inc. v. United States, 583 

F.3d 849, 853 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)). We review the 

dismissal for failure to state a claim for which relief may 

be granted de novo. See Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery 

Cent. Sch. Dist. v. United States, 48 F.3d 1166, 1170 (Fed. 

Cir. 1995).

Though we review the trial court’s dismissal without 

deference, we now affirm that decision based principally 

on the reasons stated therein.

For the kidnapping count, the trial court noted that it 

could, at most, transfer the case to a district court, as the 

Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over 

torts. See A122, Opinion and Order at 9. The trial court 

declined to transfer the suit because Mr. Bedell’s factual 

allegations were insufficient to state a claim for kidnapping. In particular, the trial court noted that Mr. Bedell’s 

only factual allegation supporting this claim is that the 

Bureau took him into custody after his conviction of a 

felony in federal court. We agree that this bare factual 

allegation is insufficient to support a claim for kidnapping 

or false imprisonment. 

For the contract count, we find it sufficient to note 

that the Department demonstrated no intent to contract

with Mr. Bedell or any acceptance of Mr. Bedell’s settleCase: 15-5122 Document: 34-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/10/2016
4 BEDELL v. US

ment offer whatsoever. We agree with the trial court’s 

conclusion that the interchange between Mr. Bedell and 

the Department does not fall into one of the narrow 

circumstances in which silence can manifest such intent 

and acceptance. See A121, Opinion and Order at 8.

Mr. Bedell makes various other allegations in his papers that generally relate to these aforementioned claims. 

These additional allegations add no merit to his claims. 

We note that Mr. Bedell alleges that the trial court did 

not properly hold him to a less stringent standard that is 

appropriate for his pro se status. See Informal Brief of 

Appellant, Form 12, Item 2. But the trial court clearly 

stated that it was reviewing Mr. Bedell’s papers cognizant 

of his pro se status, see A118, Opinion and Order at 5, and 

it appears the trial court went to great lengths to discern 

the most meritorious aspects of Mr. Bedell’s allegations. 

III

Because Mr. Bedell did not allege facts that could 

plausibly support his claims, we affirm the trial court’s 

dismissal of the case. 

AFFIRMED

No costs. 

Case: 15-5122 Document: 34-2 Page: 4 Filed: 02/10/2016