Court Opinion

ID: 9948048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 15:00:59.342994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:00.995802
License: Public Domain

Case: 24-1143    Document: 13     Page: 1   Filed: 03/06/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                  JAMES W. TINDALL,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2024-1143
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:23-cv-00757-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.
                  ______________________

                  Decided: March 6, 2024
                  ______________________

    JAMES TINDALL, Marietta, GA, pro se.

     BRYAN MICHAEL BYRD, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, PATRICIA
 M. MCCARTHY.
                   ______________________

  Before REYNA, MAYER, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
Case: 24-1143     Document: 13     Page: 2    Filed: 03/06/2024

 2                                               TINDALL v. US

     James W. Tindall appeals pro se a decision of the
 United States Court of Federal Claims that dismissed his
 complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a
 claim. We affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     Mr. Tindall owns 2,400 shares of stock in the Public
 Joint Stock Company Sberbank of Russia (“Sberbank”).
 S.Appx11. 1 In 2021, President Biden signed Executive Or-
 der No. 14,024 (“EO 14024”). Fed. Reg. 20249 (Apr. 15,
 2021).    The United States Office of Foreign Assets
 (“OFAC”), pursuant to EO 14024, issued sanctions prohib-
 iting any securities transactions involving specified Rus-
 sian financial institutions, including Sberbank. S.Appx21.
 On April 26, 2022, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Mr. Tin-
 dall’s brokerage firm, notified him of the impending actions
 on his shares of Sberbank and, on May 25, 2022, placed his
 shares into an OFAC-controlled escrow account. S.Appx34.
     During April and May of 2022, Mr. Tindall sent letters
 to various federal officials. See, e.g., S.Appx26–31. In these
 letters, Mr. Tindall offered to sell his shares and, alterna-
 tively, offered contract terms for use of his shares. Id. The
 letters also included requested deadlines for response. Id.
 The government did not respond. S.Appx50.
      On May 22, 2023, Mr. Tindall filed a complaint before
 the United States Court of Federal Claims (“CFC”).
 S.Appx11. Mr. Tindall alleged that the government had
 (1) violated his due process rights under the Fifth Amend-
 ment; (2) breached an alleged contract with Mr. Tindall for
 use of his shares; and (3) unconstitutionally taken his
 shares. S.Appx18–19. The government moved to dismiss
 for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
 S.Appx45.

     1 “S.Appx” refers to the supplemental appendix ac-
 companying the government’s responding brief.
Case: 24-1143    Document: 13      Page: 3    Filed: 03/06/2024

 TINDALL v. US                                              3

     The CFC granted the government’s motion. S.Appx1.
 The CFC found a lack of jurisdiction over Mr. Tindall’s Due
 Process claim because “[the] Due Process Clause of the
 Fifth Amendment does not mandate payment of money.”
 S.Appx4. Regarding breach of contract, the CFC deter-
 mined Mr. Tindall had failed to state a claim because a con-
 tract was never formed. S.Appx5. The CFC also held Mr.
 Tindall failed to state a takings claim because he had not
 conceded the lawfulness of the government’s actions and,
 even if he had, the government’s actions were in the inter-
 est of national security and thus exempt from such allega-
 tions.   S.Appx5–6.      In support, the CFC relied on
 Paradissiotis v. United States, 304 F.3d 1271, 1275 (Fed.
 Cir. 2002), which explains that “freez[ing] assets” as a part
 of “valid regulatory measures taken to serve substantial
 national security interests” does not constitute a compen-
 sable taking. S.Appx6.
    Mr. Tindall appeals. This Court has jurisdiction under
 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
                    STANDARD OF REVIEW
     This court reviews de novo the CFC’s grant of a motion
 to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Inter-Tribal Council of
 Arizona Inc. v, United States, 956 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed.
 Cir. 2020). We also review de novo grants of motions to
 dismiss for failure to state a claim. Id. We accept all fac-
 tual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them
 in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.
                         DISCUSSION
      For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the CFC’s
 order dismissing Mr. Tindall’s due process claim for lack of
 jurisdiction, and his breach of contract and takings claims
 for failure to state a claim.
     We first address whether the CFC has jurisdiction over
 Mr. Tindall’s claim under the Due Process clause of the
 Fifth Amendment. The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, pro-
 vides the CFC with jurisdiction over claims against the
Case: 24-1143    Document: 13      Page: 4    Filed: 03/06/2024

 4                                              TINDALL v. US

 federal government for money damages, but it does not it-
 self create a substantive cause of action against the United
 States. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216−17
 (1983) (quoting United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398
 (1976)). Instead, to come within the jurisdictional reach
 and waiver of sovereign immunity provided under the
 Tucker Act, “a plaintiff must identify a separate source of
 substantive law that creates the right to money damages.”
 Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525
 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Fisher v. United
 States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)).
     Here, Mr. Tindall claims money damages for alleged vi-
 olations of his due process rights under the Fifth Amend-
 ment. See Appellant Informal Br. 9. Mr. Tindall’s
 complaint identifies 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) as the basis for
 jurisdiction, but Mr. Tindall’s complaint fails to point to a
 separate source of substantive law that would create a
 cause of action against the government. S.Appx11–12. The
 Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment does not man-
 date the payment of money and thus does not, by itself, sat-
 isfy the jurisdictional requirements of the CFC. See
 LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir.
 1995). For these reasons, the CFC lacks jurisdiction over
 Mr. Tindall’s due process claim.
     We next look at Mr. Tindall’s breach of contract claim.
 The elements of a binding contract with the government
 are mutuality of intent between the parties, consideration,
 unambiguous offer and acceptance, and authority on the
 part of a government official to bind the United States. See
 Biltmore Forest Broad. FM, Inc. v. United States, 555 F.3d
 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As to acceptance, an offeree
 must demonstrate acceptance in response to an offer. See
 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 22(1). Here,
 Mr. Tindall argues that the government accepted his al-
 leged offer through certain “overt acts” including President
 Biden’s issuance of EO 14024, the OFAC sanctions result-
 ing in the transfer of his property to an escrow account, and
 the use of “[his] property as part of defendant’s economic
Case: 24-1143     Document: 13      Page: 5    Filed: 03/06/2024

 TINDALL v. US                                                5

 war against Russia.” Appellant Informal Br. 13. But the
 government’s alleged acts predate Mr. Tindall’s letters. See
 Appellee Informal Br. 14. The government’s actions there-
 fore do not constitute acceptance of Mr. Tindall’s alleged
 offer. As a result, Mr. Tindall’s breach of contract claim
 fails.
      To the extent Mr. Tindall asserts that the government’s
 actions following his “offer letters” constitute the govern-
 ment’s acceptance, we disagree. At most, the government
 simply remained silent after Mr. Tindall sent his letters.
 Silence only operates as acceptance in limited circum-
 stances. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 69
 (1); see also Ibrahim v. United States, 799 F. App’x. 865,
 868 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (noting that “[c]ontract law does not
 permit one to send unsolicited letters to the govern-
 ment . . . declaring that failure to respond to the letter con-
 stitutes both formation and breach of a contract”). Mr.
 Tindall has not alleged that the government’s silence falls
 into one of these circumstances and thus has not suffi-
 ciently pleaded the government’s acceptance here. Without
 acceptance, there exists no contract, and without an exist-
 ing contract, there can be no breach. Mr. Tindall therefore
 fails to present a valid breach of contract claim.
     Finally, Mr. Tindall fails to state a takings claim. The
 Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides “private
 property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just
 compensation.” U.S. Const. Amend. V. To establish CFC
 jurisdiction, the “claimant must concede the validity of the
 government action which is the basis of the taking claim.”
 Tabb Lakes, Ltd. v. United States, 10 F.3d 796, 802–03
 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
     Here, Mr. Tindall argues that the holding of his shares
 in an escrow account constitutes “an unconstitutional tak-
 ings violation.” Appellant Informal Br. 14. On appeal, Mr.
 Tindall asserts that the complaint and petition were refer-
 ring only to the government’s failure to pay as unlawful.
 Appellant Informal Br. 16–17. However, the record shows
 otherwise.    Mr. Tindall’s complaint alleges that the
Case: 24-1143     Document: 13       Page: 6   Filed: 03/06/2024

 6                                                TINDALL v. US

 government “illegally took” the shares through “unconsti-
 tutional conduct.” S.Appx14. Thus, we conclude that Mr.
 Tindall’s complaint does not “concede the validity of the
 government action” and, absent concession, fails to state a
 claim. Tabb Lakes, 10 F.3d at 802–03.
      Even assuming that Mr. Tindall implicitly concedes the
 lawfulness of the government’s actions, his takings claim
 still fails. Mr. Tindall asserts that Paradissiotis is inappli-
 cable and national security interests do not act as excep-
 tions to the Fifth Amendment. See Appellant Informal Br.
 24, 30. Mr. Tindall, however, does not provide any legal
 support for why Paradissiotis does not govern here. As we
 explained in that case, “valid regulatory measures taken to
 serve substantial national security interests . . . have not
 been recognized as compensable takings.” Paradissiotis,
 304 F.3d at 1275. “[This] principle disposes of any sugges-
 tion that the United States could freeze [foreign] assets in
 this country only of it were prepared to pay the cost of any
 losses resulting from the freeze.” Id. We see no error in
 the CFC’s reliance on this case as an additional reason for
 why Mr. Tindall’s takings claim fails at the 12(b)(6) stage.
                         CONCLUSION
     We have considered Mr. Tindall’s remaining argu-
 ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
 sons, Mr. Tindall has failed to carry his burden and failed
 to adequately state a claim. We affirm the CFC’s dismissal
 of Mr. Tindall’s complaint.
                         AFFIRMED
                             COSTS
 No costs.