NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CONSTANTINE S. ANANIADES,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2023-2278

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:22-cv-01666-BAF, Senior Judge Bohdan A. Futey.

______________________ 

Decided: February 9, 2024

______________________ 

CONSTANTINE ANANIADES, Arcadia, CA, pro se. 

 MARIANA TERESA ACEVEDO, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY,

DOUGLAS K. MICKLE. 

 ______________________ 

Before TARANTO, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 23-2278 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 02/09/2024
2 ANANIADES v. US

PER CURIAM. 

In 1984, Constantine Ananiades entered into a research contract with the United States Air Force, and in 

connection with his proposal and project work, he submitted a physical container to an office of the Air Force for 

storage. Over thirty years later, in December 2019, Mr. 

Ananiades asked the Air Force, for the first time, to return 

the container. The Air Force responded that records related to the project had been destroyed in 2004.

In November 2022, Mr. Ananiades filed a complaint in 

the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court), 

alleging, among other claims, that the federal government 

had committed a taking of his personal property (both 

physical and intellectual) and had breached duties under 

an implied-in-fact contract. In June 2023, the Claims 

Court determined that Mr. Ananiades’s claims are timebarred and dismissed his complaint. Ananiades v. United 

States, No. 22-1666, 2023 WL 4058399 (Fed. Cl. June 14, 

2023). On Mr. Ananiades’s appeal, we affirm. 

I 

In January 1984, Mr. Ananiades submitted a proposal 

concerning a “Sneak Circuit Design” to the Air Force, seeking funding under its Small Business Innovation Research 

program. Appx9, 35.1 In September 1984, Mr. Ananiades 

and the Air Force executed a contract. Appx9, 36–39. After

at least one amendment to the contract, the completion 

date of his contract was set as September 30, 1985. 

Appx41–42. Mr. Ananiades does not assert that he completed any project work after that date. 

In connection with his proposal and project work, Mr. 

Ananiades submitted a physical container to an office of 

1 “Appx” refers to the appendix that Mr. Ananiades 

filed in this court with his brief as appellant.

Case: 23-2278 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 02/09/2024
ANANIADES v. US 3

the Air Force in November 1984. Appx10, 45. He alleges 

that Air Force personnel assured him that the property 

was retrievable at any time upon request. Appx10. Not 

until December 10, 2019, however, did Mr. Ananiades ask 

the Air Force to return the container, which he did by sending a letter to the Secretary of the Air Force making that 

request. Appx11, 86. Between 2014 and 2022, Mr. Ananiades also filed requests concerning documents related to 

his project work, including a request for a declassification 

review, Appx11–12, 31, 52, and a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, Appx12–13, 24–30, 

44. 

In a February 2022 letter responding to the declassification-review request, the Air Force informed Mr. Ananiades that records related to his project proposal had been 

sent to a Federal Records Center in 1996 and then destroyed in April 2004. Appx34. Similarly, in a June 2022 

letter responding to his Freedom of Information Act request, the Air Force certified that it had no records responsive to his request and explained that records associated 

with the relevant contract number and program name had 

been destroyed in 2004. Appx46–49.

On November 8, 2022, Mr. Ananiades filed a complaint 

against the United States in the Claims Court under the 

Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a), seeking compensation 

based on allegations that the government had taken his 

personal and intellectual property and breached its duties 

under an implied-in-fact contract related to the retention 

of his personal property. Appx6, 8–21. On January 9, 

2023, the government filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims. Appx55–59. The government argued that the 

Claims Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because 

Mr. Ananiades’s claims were time-barred under the sixyear statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2501. 

Appx56–58. The Claims Court granted the government’s 

motion to dismiss and entered judgment on June 14, 2023. 

Case: 23-2278 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 02/09/2024
4 ANANIADES v. US

Ananiades, 2023 WL 4058399, at *3; Appx5. Mr. Ananiades timely appealed on August 9, 2023. See 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2522, 2107(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(3).

II

Whether the Claims Court properly dismissed an action for lack of jurisdiction generally presents a question of 

law, decided de novo on appeal. Taha v. United States, 28 

F.4th 233, 237 (Fed. Cir. 2022). But the Claims Court may 

inquire into disputed jurisdictional facts to decide the presence of jurisdiction, and if it does so, we review the court’s 

findings of fact for clear error. General Mills, Inc. v. United 

States, 957 F.3d 1275, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d 991, 993 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2501, “[e]very claim of which the 

United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction 

shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed within 

six years after such claim first accrues.” Compliance with 

the statute of limitations is a jurisdictional requirement

that cannot be waived by the Claims Court or the parties. 

John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130, 

133–36, 139 (2008). “Because the statute of limitations is 

jurisdictional, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof.” 

Petro-Hunt, L.L.C., v. United States, 862 F.3d 1370, 1378 

(Fed. Cir. 2017). 

“In general, a cause of action against the government 

accrues ‘when all the events have occurred which fix the 

liability of the [g]overnment and entitle the claimant to institute an action.’” FloorPro, Inc. v. United States, 680 F.3d 

1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Goodrich v. United 

States, 434 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). For a takings 

claim under the Fifth Amendment, a claim accrues “when 

the government deprives an owner of the use of his or her 

property.” Petro-Hunt, 862 F.3d at 1378. “[I]n the case of 

a breach of a contract, a cause of action accrues when the 

breach occurs.” Alder Terrace, Inc. v. United States, 161 

Case: 23-2278 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 02/09/2024
ANANIADES v. US 5

F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

For the present suit to have been timely filed in accordance with the six-year limitations rule of § 2501, Mr. Ananiades had to show that his claims did not accrue before 

November 8, 2016. But as correctly explained by the 

Claims Court, Ananiades, 2023 WL 4058399, at *3, even if 

accrual is assessed with maximum leniency towards Mr. 

Ananiades, for both his takings and contract-based claims

the latest event relevant to the fixation of the government’s 

liability was the destruction of records related to the project—which occurred in 2004, see Appx34, 48.

Mr. Ananiades argues that the government continues 

to retain the contents of the physical container and that the

responses to his declassification review and Freedom of Information Act requests show only that administrative records related to his project have been destroyed—not that 

the contents of the physical container have been destroyed. 

But Mr. Ananiades made the same assertions in his complaint, see Appx12–14, and in opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss, see Appx64, and the Claims 

Court determined that the records in the submitted container were transferred to a Federal Records Center in 

1996 and destroyed in 2004, Ananiades, 2023 WL 4058399, 

at *1. That factual finding is not clearly erroneous on the 

record. See Appx46 (quoting Mr. Ananiades’s Freedom of 

Information Act request as including information about 

“[d]ocuments inside the ‘Accountable Container’”); Appx48 

(explaining that “the records were destroyed” and that 

“[t]he file was . . . destroyed on 5 April 2004”). Particularly

in light of the fact that Mr. Ananiades’s Freedom of Information Act request specifically referred to the documents 

inside the physical container, the no-records certification 

provided by the Air Force is reasonably found to establish 

that all records sought—including the files within the 

physical container—were destroyed in 2004.

Case: 23-2278 Document: 18 Page: 5 Filed: 02/09/2024
6 ANANIADES v. US

To the extent that Mr. Ananiades is arguing that his 

claims are timely because he was unaware of the existence 

of his claims until he demanded the return of his personal 

property and the government failed to comply, this argument is unavailing. Under the accrual-suspension rule, accrual under the § 2501 statute of limitations may be 

suspended “until the claimant knew or should have known 

that the claim existed.” Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 

1295, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Petro-Hunt, 

862 F.3d at 1378; Goodrich, 434 F.3d at 1333. But for this

accrual-suspension rule to apply, Mr. Ananiades “must either show that [the government] has concealed its acts with 

the result that [he] was unaware of their existence or . . . 

that [his] injury was ‘inherently unknowable’ at the accrual 

date.” Martinez, 333 F.3d at 1319 (quoting Welcker v. 

United States, 752 F.2d 1577, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). 

Mr. Ananiades has made no such showing. Although 

he asserts that the Air Force has engaged in a “concerted 

cover-up” of the existence of his property, see Appx13–16, 

there is no evidence that supports the assertion. There also 

is no evidence that establishes a government failure to 

comply fully with disclosure obligations. Nor has Mr. Ananiades demonstrated, or even suggested, that he would 

have been unable to obtain the factual information about 

the destruction of records in 2004 (the accrual date, for present purposes). He did not even seek return of his property 

until 2019. See Appx78 (Mr. Ananiades acknowledging his 

December 2019 letter requesting the return of his property 

was his “first such request”). Thus, Mr. Ananiades cannot 

rely on the accrual-suspension rule, and any cause of action 

he may have had with respect to the government’s failure 

to return his personal property accrued no later than April 

2004. Because this suit was not commenced until November 2022, the asserted claims fall outside the six-year limitations period of § 2501, thus depriving the Claims Court 

of jurisdiction. 

Case: 23-2278 Document: 18 Page: 6 Filed: 02/09/2024
ANANIADES v. US 7

We have considered Mr. Ananiades’s other arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. Because Mr. Ananiades’s 

claims are time-barred, we affirm the Claims Court’s decision dismissing the complaint. 

The parties shall bear their own costs.

AFFIRMED

Case: 23-2278 Document: 18 Page: 7 Filed: 02/09/2024