Randall Jennette v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 J ENNETTE, St. Petersburg, FL, pro se.
CURTIS CLARENCE P ETT , Tax Division, United States
Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-ap-
pellee. Also represented by D AVID A. HUBBERT , J OAN I.
O PPENHEIMER
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 23-1152 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2023

-- 1 of 5 --

JENNETTE v. US 2
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: 2 Filed: 09/11/2023

-- 2 of 5 --

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.
D ISCUSSION
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: 3 Filed: 09/11/2023

-- 3 of 5 --

JENNETTE v. US 4
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: 4 Filed: 09/11/2023

-- 4 of 5 --

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.
Case: 23-1152 Document: 26 Page: 5 Filed: 09/11/2023

-- 5 of 5 --