NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-5063 

TERESA JANE TAYLOR, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

 Teresa J. Taylor, of Wooster, Ohio, pro se. 

 Meredyth D. Cohen, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. With her 

on the brief were Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. 

Davidson, Director, and Kirk T. Manhardt, Assistant Director. 

Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims 

Judge Margaret M. Sweeney 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-5063 

TERESA JANE TAYLOR, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant- Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 08-CV-025, 

Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. 

___________________________ 

DECIDED: October 8, 2008 

___________________________ 

Before BRYSON, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION 

Teresa Jane Taylor appeals from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims 

dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because Ms. Taylor’s 

complaint did not allege a claim against the United States and because her complaint 

only alleged tort claims, we affirm. 
2008-5063 2 

BACKGROUND 

Ms. Taylor filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that her 

“rights ha[d] been violated by Federal, County, and State employees who had the duty 

by law to protect the plaintiff’s life and well being, yet grossly, and willfully neglected 

their position of duty to the plaintiff.” Citing the Bill of Rights, the Thirteenth and 

Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, the International Declaration of Human 

Rights, and several statutory provisions, Ms. Taylor requested one billion dollars in 

damages based on the “gross neglect of duty” by “the Allen County Childrens Services 

Agency, the Allen County Juvenile Court, the Lima City Police Dept., [and] the Allen 

County Sheriffs Dept.” Her claims for damages were based on alleged sexual abuse by 

officials at the Allen County Sheriff’s Department and an alleged failure of the Allen 

County Children’s Services Agency and the State of Ohio to provide adequate medical 

care and shelter. Ms. Taylor further requested “clearing of records, including the 

marriage dated 1991, federal criminal prosecution for all parties involved, immunity for 

her parents because of their ages and because of their physical and medical and 

mental health, federal permission to seek dual citizenship in a neutral country for both 

the plaintiff and all minor children, and all movie, book, and story rights.” 

The trial court dismissed her claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on three 

grounds. First, the court held that the Tucker Act did not provide a jurisdictional basis 

because Ms. Taylor had not pleaded a claim against the United States. Second, the 

court held that even if Ms. Taylor’s complaint had alleged a failure of the United States 

to protect her the Tucker Act would not confer jurisdiction because that claim would 

sound in tort. Finally, the court held that Ms. Taylor had not identified a money-
2008-5063 3 

mandating provision for her claims. The court further noted that it did not have the 

authority to provide non-monetary relief for Ms. Taylor. 

DISCUSSION 

Under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to hear certain 

claims brought against the United States. Its jurisdiction does not extend to suits 

against individuals or state officials. See 28 U.SC. § 1491(a)(1); see also Cottrell v. 

United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 144, 149 (1998); Berdick v. United States, 222 Ct. Cl. 94 

(1979); Nat’l City Bank v. United States, 143 Ct. Cl. 154 (1958). Therefore, to the extent 

that Ms. Taylor sought recovery from state officials or state agencies, the trial court was 

correct to dismiss her claims. 

On appeal, however, Ms. Taylor contends that she was pursuing a claim against 

the United States, stating that the United States had custody of her when she was a 

child and directly caused “assaults, neglect, sex[ual] assaults, near death, and 

permanent disability.” Even so, the trial court was correct to dismiss her claims 

because the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over tort claims, 

including claims based on theories of negligence or breach of duty. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1491(a)(1). Ms. Taylor also argues on appeal that she formed an implied contract 

with the United States by reciting the pledge of allegiance, but she alleged no facts in 

her complaint that indicate an intent on behalf of the United States to enter into any 

contractual agreement. See City of El Centro v. United States, 922 F.2d 816, 820 (Fed. 

Cir. 1990) (“An implied-in-fact contract requires findings of . . . mutuality of intent to 

contract”). 
2008-5063 4 

The trial court was also correct in determining that none of the provisions cited by 

Ms. Taylor are money-mandating. On appeal, Ms. Taylor relies on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

and the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution as providing 

an underlying cause of action. None of those provisions, however, provides a cause of 

action for relief in the Court of Federal Claims. Jurisdiction for claims under section 

1983 lies in the district courts; the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide for relief 

against the federal government; and the First and Eighth Amendments are not money 

mandating. Trafny v. United States, 503 F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007); United 

States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 887 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Likewise, the due process 

clause of the Fifth Amendment is not money mandating, Mullenberg v. United States, 

857 F.2d 770, 773 (Fed. Cir. 1988), and although the Fifth Amendment provides for just 

compensation for takings of private property, Ms. Taylor has not alleged that any 

property interest of hers was taken by the United States. Accordingly, we uphold the 

trial court’s order dismissing Ms. Taylor’s complaint.