throbber
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`ERIC DRAKE,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2018-2135, 2019-1572
`______________________
`
`Appeals from the United States Court of Federal
`Claims in Nos. 1:17-cv-00581-SGB, 1:18-cv-01806-NBF,
`Senior Judge Nancy B. Firestone, Senior Judge Susan G.
`Braden.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: November 13, 2019
`______________________
`
`ERIC DRAKE, Dallas, TX, pro se.
`
`
` MILES KARSON, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
`Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
`ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
`JOSEPH H. HUNT, STEVEN JOHN GILLINGHAM, ROBERT
`EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.
`______________________
`
`
`

`

`2
`
`DRAKE v. UNITED STATES
`
`Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and BRYSON,
`Circuit Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM.
`Eric Drake appeals two decisions by the United States
`Court of Federal Claims dismissing two separate cases, pri-
`marily based on the same facts and the same causes of ac-
`tion. The first order dismissed Mr. Drake’s first complaint
`as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2501, and the second order
`dismissed Mr. Drake’s second complaint for lack of subject
`matter jurisdiction. See Drake v. United States, No. 17-
`581, 2018 WL 1613869 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 3, 2018) (“Drake I”);
`Vondrake v. United States, No. 18-1806, 141 Fed. Cl. 599
`(Fed. Cl. 2019) (“Drake II”).1 Because we conclude that the
`Court of Federal Claims lacks subject matter jurisdiction
`for both complaints, we affirm.
`I
`On May 30, 1990, Mr. Drake was arrested by the
`United States Secret Service after depositing in a Virginia
`bank eight thousand dollars that the bank suspected was
`illegally obtained. Following his arrest, Mr. Drake re-
`mained incarcerated until August 14, 1990, when he pled
`guilty to producing a false identification document under
`18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(1).2 On October 17, 1990, the United
`
`1 The record includes several aliases for Plaintiff-Ap-
`pellant, including the names “Eric Drake” and “E.
`Vondrake” in the two underlying cases. See Drake I,
`No. 17-581, 2018 WL 1613869, *1 n.2 (noting that Mr.
`Drake’s aliases include “David Wayne Rogers,” “Eric von
`Drake,” “Eric von Rogers,” and “Mark Fuller”). For con-
`sistency, we will refer to the Plaintiff-Appellant as
`Mr. Drake.
`2 At the time of Mr. Drake’s plea, 18 U.S.C.
`§ 1028(a)(1) provided that “[w]hoever . . . knowingly and
`without
`lawful authority produces an
`identification
`
`

`

`DRAKE v. UNITED STATES
`
`3
`
`States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
`convicted Mr. Drake, imposing a fine and sentencing Mr.
`Drake to one hundred and forty-one days, which was time
`he had already served, and twenty-four months supervised
`release.
`The case now before this court is a consolidated appeal
`from two separate cases filed by Mr. Drake in the Court of
`Federal Claims related to his 1990 conviction. Mr. Drake
`filed his first complaint at the Court of Federal Claims on
`April 27, 2017, and he amended that complaint on Novem-
`ber 15, 2017. Mr. Drake alleged constitutional and civil
`rights violations based on what he argued was an unjust
`conviction. See S.A. 7–353; Appellant’s Br. 7. Mr. Drake
`also alleged breach of contract for the constitutional viola-
`tions based on “an implied and bilateral contract with the
`government of the United States” through the U.S. Consti-
`tution and Bill of Rights. S.A. 11. Finally, Mr. Drake as-
`serted tort claims against the government based on
`intentional infliction of emotional distress and mental an-
`guish. S.A. 35. The Government moved to dismiss Mr.
`Drake’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction, including on the
`ground that it was untimely filed after the six-year statute
`of limitations provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2501. Mr. Drake op-
`posed, arguing that the statute of limitations should be eq-
`uitably tolled. On April 3, 2018, the Court of Federal
`Claims dismissed the complaint because it was filed after
`the statute of limitations had expired and was therefore
`untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2501. Drake I, 2018 WL
`1613869, at *6. Mr. Drake requested reconsideration,
`
`
`document or a false identification document . . . or at-
`tempts to do so, shall be punished[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(1)
`(1990).
`3 Citations to the record are to the Supplemental Ap-
`pendix (“S.A.”), filed by the U.S. Department of Justice.
`
`

`

`4
`
`DRAKE v. UNITED STATES
`
`which the Court of Federal Claims denied. Mr. Drake ap-
`pealed.
`On November 16, 2018, Mr. Drake filed a second com-
`plaint primarily asserting the same causes of action based
`on the same facts. S.A. 53–81. In the second case,
`Mr. Drake additionally alleged that his suit was timely
`filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 because he qualified for an ex-
`ception to that statute, which extends the statutory dead-
`line for “a person under legal disability.” See S.A. 53. On
`January 22, 2019, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed
`the case sua sponte based on its finding that it lacked sub-
`ject matter jurisdiction over any claim asserted. See
`Drake II, 141 Fed. Cl. at 600–02. For the purposes of its
`order, the Court of Federal Claims assumed that Mr.
`Drake’s allegation of legal disability was sufficient to sat-
`isfy the exception in § 2501. Id. at 601. Again, Mr. Drake
`appealed.
`On April 18, 2019, this court consolidated Mr. Drake’s
`two appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1295(a)(3).
`
`II
`We review the Court of Federal Claims’s determination
`of its subject matter jurisdiction de novo. See Abbas v.
`United States, 842 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
`Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1303, 1309 (Fed. Cir.
`2011).
`The Tucker Act is the primary statute conferring juris-
`diction on the Court of Federal Claims. 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1491(a)(1); see also Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d
`1357, 1359–60 (Fed. Cir. 2002). It provides that the Court
`of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction for “any claim
`against the United States founded either upon the Consti-
`tution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an ex-
`ecutive department, or upon any express or implied
`contract with the United States, or for liquidated or
`
`

`

`DRAKE v. UNITED STATES
`
`5
`
`unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.”
`28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). To be cognizable, a claim under the
`Tucker Act must be for money damages against the United
`States. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 397–98
`(1976); Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1115–16
`(Fed. Cir. 2013). Because the Tucker Act itself “does not
`create any substantive right enforceable against the
`United States for money damages,” to demonstrate juris-
`diction, a plaintiff must identify a separate contract, regu-
`lation, statute, or constitutional provision granting such a
`substantive right. Testan, 424 U.S. at 398; see also Ferreiro
`v. United States, 501 F.3d 1349, 1351–52 (Fed. Cir. 2007);
`Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir.
`2005).
`In the two complaints central to this appeal, Mr. Drake
`asserts a number of different claims against the United
`States. First, Mr. Drake argues that his 1990 arrest, im-
`prisonment, and conviction constitute unjust conviction.
`He argues that the United States engaged in unlawful dis-
`crimination on the basis of his race and that such discrim-
`ination included unlawful arrest and torture, which led to
`a false guilty plea and his conviction.4 As support for a
`
`
`4 Mr. Drake alleges that he was wrongfully convicted
`in 1990 and asserts that his innocence is established by a
`pardon granted to him by the Governor of Louisiana. See
`S.A. 52. Notwithstanding the fact that a state governor’s
`pardon does not establish that Mr. Drake was unjustly con-
`victed of a federal crime, see 28 U.S.C. § 2513(b); Freeman
`v. United States, 568 F. App’x 892, 894 (Fed. Cir. 2014), to
`the extent that Mr. Drake requests that the Court of Fed-
`eral Claims review his federal criminal conviction, the
`Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to re-
`view criminal convictions or decisions by a federal district
`court, Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 379–80
`(Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`

`

`6
`
`DRAKE v. UNITED STATES
`
`substantive right, Mr. Drake relies on the Fourth, Fifth,
`and Fourteenth Amendments, the Privileges and Immuni-
`ties Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution,
`and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1988. The Court of Fed-
`eral Claims does not have jurisdiction to render judgment
`on claims arising under the Due Process Clause of the
`Fourth Amendment, Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621,
`623–24 (Fed. Cir. 1997),5 the Due Process Clause of the
`Fifth Amendment, Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114,
`1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Privileges and Immunities
`Clause of Article IV, Section 2, Ivaldy v. United States, 655
`F. App’x 813, 815 (Fed. Cir. 2016), or the Equal Protection
`and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,
`Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir.
`2013).6 The Court of Federal Claims likewise does not have
`jurisdiction to entertain federal civil rights violations be-
`cause the protections afforded by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983,
`and 1988 create liability only when injury occurs under
`state law. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1988; see also Wil-
`son v. United States, 566 F. App’x 913, 915 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
`
`
`5 To the extent that Mr. Drake alleges constitutional
`violations against federal agents in their personal capacity,
`the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over
`actions against individual federal agents. Brown, 105 F.3d
`at 624.
`6 On appeal, Mr. Drake argues that his second com-
`plaint alleged constitutional violations under the Seventh
`Amendment. Appellant’s Br. 7. Neither of Mr. Drake’s
`complaints before the Court of Federal Claims included an
`allegation of a Seventh Amendment violation. See S.A. 7–
`35, 53–81. But even if they had, the Seventh Amendment
`is not money-mandating and, like Mr. Drake’s other
`claims, does not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Federal
`Claims. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 587
`(1941); Fisher, 402 F.3d at 1174.
`
`

`

`DRAKE v. UNITED STATES
`
`7
`
`Maxberry v. United States, 722 F. App’x 997, 1001 (Fed.
`Cir. 2018).
`Mr. Drake also asserts that the United States violated
`his Sixth Amendment rights by manufacturing evidence
`against him and failing to provide him with his Miranda
`rights. See generally Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
`(1966). The Court of Federal Claims, however, does not
`have jurisdiction to render judgment on claims against the
`United States based on the Sixth Amendment because it is
`not money mandating. Maxberry, 722 F. App’x at 1000;
`Milas v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 704, 710 (Fed. Cl. 1999),
`aff’d 217 F.3d 854 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`Mr. Drake further asserts that during his imprison-
`ment, the Government improperly denied him bail in vio-
`lation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court of Federal
`Claims also does not have jurisdiction to render judgment
`on violations of the Eighth Amendment because it is not
`money mandating. Trafny v. United States, 503 F.3d 1339,
`1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`Next, Mr. Drake argues that these alleged constitu-
`tional violations are a breach of his “implied and bilateral
`contract with the government of the United States”
`through the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The
`Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to con-
`sider contracts implied in law. Hercules Inc. v. United
`States, 516 U.S. 417, 423–24 (1996); Trauma Serv. Grp. v.
`United States, 104 F.3d 1321, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`Thus, even if there were a legal basis for Mr. Drake’s reli-
`ance on the U.S. Constitution as an implied contract, the
`Court of Federal Claims would nonetheless lack jurisdic-
`tion over his claim.
`Finally, Mr. Drake alleges that the Government’s ac-
`tions related to his 1990 conviction intentionally inflicted
`emotional distress and mental anguish. These allegations
`are tort claims over which the Tucker Act expressly prohib-
`its jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims. 28 U.S.C.
`
`

`

`8
`
`DRAKE v. UNITED STATES
`
`§ 1491(a)(1); see also Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S.
`200, 214 (1993). To the extent Mr. Drake’s claims are
`based on alleged torture likewise the Court of Federal
`Claims does not have jurisdiction. Sheldon v. United
`States, 742 F. App’x 496, 501 (Fed. Cir. 2018).7
`On appeal, Mr. Drake’s arguments relate to whether
`his complaints were timely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2501.
`Because the Court of Federal Claims does not have juris-
`diction with respect to any of Mr. Drake’s claims regardless
`of whether they were timely filed, we do not reach
`Mr. Drake’s arguments related to § 2501. 8 We therefore
`affirm the Court of Federal Claims’s dismissal in each of
`the cases below.
`
`AFFIRMED
`COSTS
`The parties shall bear their own costs.
`
`
`7 We do not hold that the Court of Federal Claims
`has no authority to consider constitutional arguments in
`claims where the court’s jurisdiction is established by stat-
`ute; for example, in Tucker Act claims in which a constitu-
`tional argument such as a due process argument is
`presented with respect to the merits of the claim. We hold
`only that the Court of Federal Claims did not have juris-
`diction over the constitutional violations in this case.
`8 Because we find that the Court of Federal Claims
`lacked jurisdiction for each claim asserted by Mr. Drake,
`we also deny Mr. Drake’s pending motion to supplement
`the joint appendix. See Drake I, No. 18-2135, ECF No. 15
`(Fed. Cir. June 10, 2019).
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket