Clifford L. Noll v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CLIFFORD L. NOLL,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1174
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-00294-TMD, Judge Thompson M. Dietz.
______________________
Decided: July 24, 2024
______________________
CLIFFORD L. N OLL , Coeur d’Alene, ID, pro se.
SAMUEL P ATRICK J ONES , Tax Division, United States
Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-ap-
pellee. Also represented by MICHAEL J. HAUNGS , D AVID A.
HUBBERT .
______________________
Before P ROST , L INN, and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1174 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 07/24/2024

-- 1 of 7 --

NOLL v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Appellant Clifford L. Noll appeals the United States
Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of his complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. Because Mr. Noll has not al-
leged any claim that falls within the limited jurisdiction of
the trial court, we affirm.
I
On February 27, 2023, Mr. Noll, proceeding pro se,
filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims. S.A.1 9–
14. In his complaint, he alleged a number of claims against
the government for actions taken by the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) to satisfy Mr. Noll’s tax liability. Mr. Noll al-
leges that in 1988, the IRS unlawfully filed a federal tax
lien against his property in the amount of $125,916.80 and
that the IRS later sold that property to recover the amount
owed. He also alleges that the IRS improperly seized
$3,000 from his bank account in 2000. As explained by the
trial court, “Mr. Noll asserts that these actions by the IRS
amount to, among other claims, trespass and violation of
his constitutional rights because he denies the legitimacy
of the underlying tax liability and, by extension, the at-
tempts to satisfy the tax liability.” Noll v. United States,
No. 1:23-cv-00294-TMD (Fed. Cl. July 24, 2023), ECF No.
10 at 2; S.A. 3. Mr. Noll’s complaint sought $35,664,300 in
damages “to be paid in United States of America minted
gold coins.” S.A. 10.
On April 17, 2023, the government filed a motion to dis-
miss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States
Court of Federal Claims (RCFC), asserting that, even if
Mr. Noll’s complaint is liberally construed, none of the
1 Citations to “S.A.” refer to the Supplemental Ap-
pendix submitted with the government’s response brief.
See ECF No. 10.
Case: 24-1174 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 07/24/2024

-- 2 of 7 --

NOLL v. US 3
alleged claims could properly confer jurisdiction. In consid-
ering the motion to dismiss, the trial court first noted that,
although claims by pro se plaintiffs “are held to less strin-
gent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,”
S.A. 3 (quoting Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (inter-
nal quotations omitted)), Mr. Noll was “not excused or ex-
empt from meeting the Court’s jurisdictional
requirements,” S.A. 3 (citing Henke v. United States, 60
F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
The trial court found that “Mr. Noll’s complaint, when
construed liberally, alleges claims for due process viola-
tions, a Fifth Amendment taking, tort, illegal collections
activities, and a claim for refund,” but even generously con-
strued, “his complaint fails to properly invoke this Court’s
jurisdiction, and, therefore, his complaint must be dis-
missed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” S.A. 4. The
court first noted that it did not have jurisdiction to consider
Mr. Noll’s Fourth Amendment claim or Fifth Amendment
due process claim, because neither were money-mandating
claims as required by the Tucker Act. Next, the court re-
jected any attempt by Mr. Noll to establish jurisdiction by
citing an Idaho state statute, because the Court of Federal
Claims “does not have jurisdiction over claims arising out
of state statutes or regulations.” S.A. 4 (citing Murray v.
United States, 817 F.2d 1580, 1583–84 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
With respect to Mr. Noll’s Fifth Amendment takings claim,
the trial court found that dismissal was appropriate be-
cause Mr. Noll did not “concede the validity of the govern-
ment action which is the basis of the claim,” which is
required to maintain such a claim under the Tucker Act.
S.A. 5 (citing Tabb Lakes, Ltd. v. United States, 10 F.3d
796, 802 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). For Mr. Noll’s allegations of tres-
pass and fraud, the trial court explained that such claims
“sound in tort, or allege criminal conduct,” S.A. 5 (quoting
Cycenas v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 485, 498 (2015)), and
accordingly, cannot be heard in the Court of Federal
Claims, S.A. 5 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)). Next, the
Case: 24-1174 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 07/24/2024

-- 3 of 7 --

NOLL v. US 4
court noted that although “Mr. Noll’s complaint can rea-
sonably be construed to allege a wrongful levy against his
property and unauthorized collection actions by IRS agents
to satisfy his tax liability,” such claims are limited to the
exclusive jurisdiction of “a district court of the United
States.” S.A. 5 (citing 26 U.S.C. §§ 7426(a)(1), 7433(a)). Fi-
nally, the trial court found that Mr. Noll had not met the
jurisdictional prerequisites for it to consider a tax refund
claim—namely, Mr. Noll had not provided any evidence or
allegations that he either made a payment of taxes, or that
he filed a tax refund claim with the IRS. Accordingly, the
trial court granted the government’s motion and dismissed
the case without prejudice.
Mr. Noll timely appealed the dismissal. We have juris-
diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
II
We review the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Waltner v.
United States, 679 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited juris-
diction. The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), gives it ju-
risdiction over “claims for money damages against the
United States” founded upon “‘any Act of Congress’” in
cases not sounding in tort. Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d
1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc in relevant part) (quot-
ing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)). To come within the court’s
Tucker Act jurisdiction, however, “a plaintiff must identify
a separate source of substantive law that creates the right
to money damages”—in other words, a source that is
“money-mandating.” Id.
We see no error in the trial court’s conclusion that it
lacked jurisdiction over any claim in Mr. Noll’s complaint.
As an initial matter, we agree with the trial court’s liberal
interpretation of the claims raised in the complaint, and
Mr. Noll does not contest the court’s characterization on
Case: 24-1174 Document: 17 Page: 4 Filed: 07/24/2024

-- 4 of 7 --

NOLL v. US 5
appeal. With respect to Mr. Noll’s allegations of either a
Fourth Amendment violation or Fifth Amendment due pro-
cess violation, this court has held that such clauses are not
money-mandating. See Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d
1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The law is well settled that
the Due Process clauses of both the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments do not mandate the payment of money and
thus do not provide a cause of action under the Tucker
Act.”); In re United States, 463 F.3d 1328, 1335 n.5 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (“We agree that because the Due Process Clause
is not money-mandating, it may not provide the basis for
jurisdiction under the Tucker Act.”); Brown v. United
States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Because mone-
tary damages are not available for a Fourth Amendment
violation, the Court of Federal Claims does not have juris-
diction over a such a violation.” (citing United States v.
Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 218 (1983))). Further, to the extent
that Mr. Noll attempts to save these claims by citing Idaho
state law, see, e.g., Appellant’s Br. 9; Reply Br. 7, he cannot
prevail. See Souders v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth., 497 F.3d
1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Claims founded on state law
are also outside the scope of the limited jurisdiction of the
Court of Federal Claims.”).
We also agree with the trial court that Mr. Noll’s com-
plaint fails to the extent that it can be read as seeking mon-
etary relief under the Internal Revenue Code for unlawful
tax collection actions. As explained by the trial court, the
provisions within the Internal Revenue Code that provide
avenues for taxpayers to bring these types of claims, for ex-
ample, 26 U.S.C. §§ 7426 and 7433, grant exclusive juris-
diction over such claims to “a district court of the United
States.” 26 U.S.C. §§ 7426(a)(1), 7433(a). “The Court of
Federal Claims is not a district court of the United States,”
and therefore, is not the proper venue for these claims. See
Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir.
2002).
Case: 24-1174 Document: 17 Page: 5 Filed: 07/24/2024

-- 5 of 7 --

NOLL v. US 6
The trial court was also correct to hold that it did not
have jurisdiction over Mr. Noll’s allegations of trespass and
fraud. The Tucker Act and our case law interpreting the
Act are clear that the Court of Federal Claims does not
have jurisdiction over tort claims, including trespass and
fraud. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a); Souders, 497 F.3d at 1307
(“It is immediately clear that the tort claims are clearly
outside the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Federal
Claims and thus cannot be transferred there.”). To the ex-
tent that Mr. Noll raises allegations based on criminal stat-
utes—such as a claim for “extortion,” see S.A. 13—these
claims also fall outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Fed-
eral Claims. See Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 379
(Fed. Cir. 1994).
Mr. Noll has also not satisfied the jurisdictional re-
quirements to bring a claim for a tax refund. In order for
the trial court to have jurisdiction over a tax refund claim,
“the taxpayer must make full payment of the tax liability,
bring a timely claim for refund with the IRS, and file a
timely complaint after the refund claim is denied or
deemed denied.” Walby v. United States, 957 F.3d 1295,
1298 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing I.R.C. §§ 7422(a), 6532(a);
Shore v. United States, 9 F.3d 1524, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1993));
see also Dixon v. United States, 67 F.4th 1156, 1161 (Fed.
Cir. 2023) (citing United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608–
10 (1990)). As the trial court pointed out, Mr. Noll has done
none of this, and in fact, continues to assert that he is not
subject to federal income tax. See S.A 5–6; Appellant’s Br.
2–5.
Finally, we agree with the trial court that dismissal of
Mr. Noll’s takings claim was appropriate. Although the
Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment is a
money-mandating source under the Tucker Act, see Jan’s
Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. F.A.A., 525 F.3d 1299, 1309 (Fed.
Cir. 2008), to maintain a takings claim, a claimant must
also make a “nonfrivolous allegation” that he is within the
class of plaintiffs entitled to recover under that clause, id.,
Case: 24-1174 Document: 17 Page: 6 Filed: 07/24/2024

-- 6 of 7 --

NOLL v. US 7
and he “must concede the validity of the Government action
which is the basis of the . . . claim,” Tabb Lakes, 10 F.3d at
802–03. Again, there is nothing in the record to support a
finding that Mr. Noll has conceded the validity of the gov-
ernment’s sale of his property.2
III
We have considered Mr. Noll’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons stated above,
we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
2 The trial court characterized the dismissal of
Mr. Noll’s takings claim as a dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. S.A. 4–5. We note that this court has,
at times, considered similar dismissals to be jurisdictional,
see Acadia Tech., Inc. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1327, 1331
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Tabb Lakes, 10 F.3d at 802), and at
other times, to be dismissals for failure to state a claim, see
Tindall v. United States, No. 2024-1143, 2024 WL 960452,
at *3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2024) (nonprecedential) (also citing
Tabb Lakes, 10 F.3d at 802–03). Regardless how the issue
is framed, we find that dismissal was appropriate. See
Brown v. United States, 22 F.4th 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir.
2022) (holding that, in the context of a tax refund statute,
the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for lack of jurisdic-
tion was harmless error because the claim could properly
be dismissed for failure to state a claim).
Case: 24-1174 Document: 17 Page: 7 Filed: 07/24/2024

-- 7 of 7 --