William F. Kaetz v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
WILLIAM F. KAETZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1812
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-00201-MMS, Senior Judge Margaret M.
Sweeney.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
William F. Kaetz moves for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). Having considered the complaint, the
judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims,
and Mr. Kaetz’s opening brief, we summarily affirm.
In 2020, following his arrest, Mr. Kaetz entered into a
plea agreement with federal prosecutors that provided for
Case: 22-1812 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 10/26/2022

-- 1 of 5 --

KAETZ v. US 2
a term of imprisonment of sixteen months and a term of
supervised release of three years, with the first six months
to be served in home detention. That plea was later
adopted as part of the judgment in his criminal case.
After his release from prison, Mr. Kaetz filed the pre-
sent action, seeking damages and injunctive relief related
to the time of his home detention, alleging that restriction
was a breach of the plea agreement. The Court of Federal
Claims granted Mr. Kaetz IFP status and dismissed the
complaint for failing to assert any claims over which it pos-
sessed jurisdiction, concluding that the agreement “lacks
any language obligating the United States to pay money
damages to plaintiff in the event the United States
breached its terms.” Kaetz v. United States, No. 22-201C,
slip op. at 5 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 8, 2022), ECF No. 7. On April
12, 2022, the Court of Federal Claims denied Mr. Kaetz’s
motion for reconsideration and certified under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good
faith “because, as alleged, plaintiff’s claims are clearly be-
yond the jurisdiction of this court.” Kaetz v. United States,
No. 22-201C, slip op. at 5 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 12, 2022), ECF No.
11. Mr. Kaetz nevertheless filed this notice of appeal.
Summary affirmance is appropriate when there is “no
substantial question regarding the outcome” of the appeal.
Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), limits the jurisdic-
tion of the Court of Federal Claims to “claims for money
damages against the United States.” Fisher v. United
States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005). To invoke that
court’s jurisdiction, a plaintiff must identify a source of
substantive law that “can fairly be interpreted as mandat-
ing compensation by the Federal Government.” United
States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court of Fed-
eral Claims held that Mr. Kaetz failed to identify such a
source in his complaint. And Mr. Kaetz’s opening brief
raises no substantial challenge to that decision.
Case: 22-1812 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 10/26/2022

-- 2 of 5 --

KAETZ v. US 3
Here, the Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct
that the plea agreement relied on by Mr. Kaetz could not
serve as a basis to invoke the court’s jurisdiction under the
Tucker Act. Our precedent makes clear that the Court of
Federal Claims may hear a claim for an “alleged breach of
an agreement with a criminal defendant . . . only if the
agreement clearly and unmistakably subjects the United
States to monetary liability for any breach.” Sanders v.
United States, 252 F.3d 1329, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The
Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that this plea
agreement lacked the necessary “unmistakable promise”
required to subject the government to liability. Id. at 1336.
Nor does the Court of Federal Claims have jurisdiction
to hear any alleged breach-of-contract claim based on an
oath of office or obligation to uphold the Constitution. See
Taylor v. United States, 747 F. App’x 863, 863–64 (Fed. Cir.
2019). Mr. Kaetz likewise cannot invoke the jurisdiction of
the Court of Federal Claims by arguing that the govern-
ment violated the Constitution as a social contract because
that court does not have jurisdiction to consider 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).
The Court of Federal Claims was also clearly correct
that Mr. Kaetz could not sue in that court based on alleged
violations of the Fourth Amendment, Brown v. United
States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Smith v. United States,
709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Eighth Amend-
ment, Trafny v. United States, 503 F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed.
Cir. 2007), the Thirteenth Amendment, Harris v. United
States, 686 F. App’x 895, 899 (Fed. Cir. 2017), or the Four-
teenth Amendment to the Constitution, LeBlanc v. United
States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Nothing in
those provisions mandates compensation by the United
States.
Case: 22-1812 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 10/26/2022

-- 3 of 5 --

KAETZ v. US 4
Mr. Kaetz’s argument that the imposition of home de-
tention is itself a violation of the Takings Clause of the
Fifth Amendment is also without merit. The Fifth Amend-
ment prohibits only “private property be[ing] taken for
public use, without just compensation.” U.S. CONST.
amend. V. And the alleged unlawful seizure of convicted
prisoners and their property are not the kinds of actions
that are due compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
See Castro v. United States, 364 F. App’x 619, 620 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (rejecting alleged unjust imprisonment as a possible
violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause).
Mr. Kaetz further alleges that his home detention
amounts to false imprisonment and that he should be com-
pensated for the resulting loss of income and negligent and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. But these alle-
gations are tort claims over which the Court of Federal
Claims does not have jurisdiction to review. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1); Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200,
214 (1993). To the extent that Mr. Kaetz is challenging his
sentence imposed in his criminal case in federal district
court, the Court of Federal Claims likewise does not have
jurisdiction over such collateral challenges. Shinnecock In-
dian Nation v. United States, 782 F.3d 1345, 1352 (Fed.
Cir. 2015).
Finally, to the extent that Mr. Kaetz is now attempting
to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims for
damages for unjust conviction and imprisonment under 28
U.S.C. § 1495, we also summarily reject that argument.
Mr. Kaetz did not allege that his conviction was reversed
or set aside, that he was found not guilty, or that he had
been pardoned, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2513(a)(1).
Rather, he merely alleged that the time after his imprison-
ment during which he remains in home detention is con-
trary to his understanding of the plea agreement.
Accordingly,
Case: 22-1812 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 10/26/2022

-- 4 of 5 --

KAETZ v. US 5
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) ECF No. 15 is accepted as Mr. Kaetz’s opening
brief.
(2) The judgment of the United States Court of Federal
Claims dismissing the complaint is affirmed.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
October 26, 2022
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 22-1812 Document: 18 Page: 5 Filed: 10/26/2022

-- 5 of 5 --