Court Opinion

ID: 9839457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 15:01:23.10304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:07.733383
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1152    Document: 26    Page: 1   Filed: 09/11/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                 RANDALL JENNETTE,
                   Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2023-1152
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:22-cv-00230-EDK, Chief Judge Elaine Kaplan.
                  ______________________

                Decided: September 11, 2023
                  ______________________

    RANDALL JENNETTE, St. Petersburg, FL, pro se.

     CURTIS CLARENCE PETT, Tax Division, United States
 Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-ap-
 pellee. Also represented by DAVID A. HUBBERT, JOAN I.
 OPPENHEIMER
                 ______________________

 PER CURIAM.
Case: 23-1152     Document: 26     Page: 2    Filed: 09/11/2023

 2                                             JENNETTE v. US

     Randall Jennette appeals from a decision of the United
 States Court of Federal Claims (the “Claims Court”) dis-
 missing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdic-
 tion. See Jennette v. United States, No. 22-230T, 2022 WL
 4078553 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 6, 2022) (“Decision”). For the rea-
 sons detailed below, we affirm the Claims Court’s decision.
                        BACKGROUND
     In 2019, Jennette, who was incarcerated in a Pennsyl-
 vania state prison, filed a tax return, and reported billions
 of dollars in income that he claimed he was entitled to re-
 cover from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in connec-
 tion with civil actions that he had filed in state court. See
 S.A. 11; 1 Decision at *1. Based on the assertions of his re-
 ported income, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) as-
 sessed a $5,000 penalty against Jennette for filing a
 frivolous tax return. S.A. 29. Jennette did not pay the pen-
 alty and instead filed suit in the Claims Court, asking it to
 cancel the penalty. See S.A. 11; Decision at *2–3. He ar-
 gued that his 2019 tax return was not frivolous because a
 request for default judgment that he filed in state court and
 an alleged contract with Pennsylvania represented valid
 sources of reportable income. S.A. 11. In the same action,
 Jennette also asserted criminal and tort claims arising out
 of his incarceration. See S.A. 33.
     The Claims Court dismissed Jennette’s complaint for
 lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Decision at *5. The
 court held that it lacked jurisdiction over Jennette’s re-
 quest for equitable relief because it did not “possess general
 equity jurisdiction,” and because the Anti-Injunction Act
 barred courts from enjoining tax collection. Id. at *3. The
 court added that, even if it interpreted Jennette’s com-
 plaint as requesting a refund of the penalty, it would still
 lack jurisdiction over his claim because he had failed to

     1  “S.A.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix filed
 with the government’s brief.
Case: 23-1152     Document: 26     Page: 3    Filed: 09/11/2023

 JENNETTE v. US                                              3

 satisfy the statutory prerequisites for a refund suit, specif-
 ically, full payment of the amount at issue. Id. (citing
 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1)). The Claims Court also held that it
 lacked jurisdiction over Jennette’s contract claims because
 its jurisdiction is limited to claims against the United
 States,     not    individual    states.       Id.     (citing
 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (stating that the Claims Court “shall
 have jurisdiction to render judgment upon . . . any express
 or implied contract with the United States” (emphasis
 added))).
      Lastly, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction over
 Jennette’s tort and criminal claims. Id. at *4; see also
 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (stating that the Claims Court’s ju-
 risdiction is limited to “any claim against the United States
 founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Con-
 gress 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 sound-
 ing in tort”). Jennette then timely appealed the Claims
 Court’s decision to this court.
                         DISCUSSION
     On appeal, Jennette argues that he established a valid
 claim for a tax refund and sufficiently alleged the existence
 of a contract. Appellant’s Informal Br. at 2. Jennette also
 asserts that the Claims Court failed to take into account
 that he was the victim of a federal crime by being held un-
 lawfully in a state prison, and similarly asserts that the
 court failed to entertain his tort claim arising from his im-
 prisonment. Id. at 1–2.
     The government responds that the Claims Court cor-
 rectly held that it lacked jurisdiction over Jennette’s suit
 because he failed to pay his assessed tax liability and did
 not allege a contract with the United States, but, rather,
 alleged a contract with an individual state. Appellee’s Br.
 at 6. The government adds that the court lacks jurisdiction
 over criminal and tort claims. Id.
Case: 23-1152     Document: 26      Page: 4    Filed: 09/11/2023

 4                                              JENNETTE v. US

     Because jurisdictional issues are questions of law, we
 review them de novo. See Alder Terrace, Inc. v. United
 States, 161 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In doing so,
 we review any underlying findings of fact for clear error.
 See Banks v. United States, 314 F.3d 1304, 1307–08 (Fed.
 Cir. 2003). In addition, where the trial court’s subject mat-
 ter jurisdiction is placed into issue, the nonmoving party
 bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. See Alder
 Terrace, 161 F.3d at 1377.
     Although pro se plaintiffs are given some latitude in
 their pleadings and are not held to the rigid standards or
 formalities imposed upon parties represented by counsel,
 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), a pro se plaintiff
 must still “comply with the applicable rules of procedural
 and substantive law.” Walsh v. United States, 3 Cl. Ct. 539,
 541 (1983) (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835
 n.46 (1975)). Thus, the leniency afforded to pro se litigants
 with respect to mere formalities does not relieve them of
 jurisdictional requirements. See Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t
 of Lab., 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
      We agree with the government that the Claims Court
 lacked jurisdiction to hear Jennette’s case and properly dis-
 missed his complaint. Regarding his tax claim, the Claims
 Court does possess jurisdiction over tax refund claims;
 however, a plaintiff must first pay the full tax before bring-
 ing a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1); see also Diamond v.
 United States, 603 F. App’x 947, 949 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (ap-
 plying the “full payment rule” to penalty protests). Addi-
 tionally, the plaintiff must first file a refund claim with the
 IRS before bringing suit in the Claims Court.
 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a); see also Rogers v. United States, 66 F.
 App’x 195, 198 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (explaining that the Claims
 Court lacks jurisdiction to order the government to refund
 IRS penalties where the plaintiff has not filed a refund
 claim with the IRS). Here, the record does not show that
 Jennette paid the penalty he disputes or that he previously
 filed a refund claim with the IRS. We therefore hold that
Case: 23-1152     Document: 26      Page: 5   Filed: 09/11/2023

 JENNETTE v. US                                             5

 the court properly dismissed Jennette’s tax claim for lack
 of subject matter jurisdiction.
     Regarding Jennette’s contract claim, the Claims Court
 may only adjudicate contract claims between the United
 States and those with whom it has privity of contract.
 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (“The [Claims Court] shall have ju-
 risdiction to render judgment upon . . . any express or im-
 plied contract with the United States.”); see also Cienega
 Gardens v. United States, 194 F.3d 1231, 1239 (Fed. Cir.
 1998). Agreements with states or state officials do not es-
 tablish privity with the federal government. Anderson v.
 United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 330, 331 (2014) (citing United
 States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941)). Jennette
 does not appear to assert that his alleged contract placed
 him in privity with the United States. Because Jennette’s
 alleged contract with Pennsylvania does not establish priv-
 ity with the federal government, the court properly dis-
 missed his contract claim for lack of jurisdiction.
     Lastly, the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudi-
 cate Jennette’s criminal and tort claims and properly dis-
 missed these claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (stating
 that the Claims Court’s jurisdiction is limited to “any claim
 against the United States founded either upon the Consti-
 tution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an exec-
 utive department, or upon any express or implied contract
 with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated
 damages in cases not sounding in tort”).
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered Jennette’s remaining arguments,
 but we find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the decision
 of the Claims Court is affirmed.
                        AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 No costs.