Calvin Lydell Dibrell v. United States

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CALVIN LYDELL DIBRELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1724
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-01983-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.
______________________
Decided: December 18, 2024
______________________
CALVIN LYDELL DIBRELL, Knoxville, TN, pro se.
KELLY GEDDES, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented
by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before LOURIE, DYK, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1724 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 12/18/2024

-- 1 of 7 --

DIBRELL v. US 2
PER CURIAM.
Calvin Lydell Dibrell appeals a decision of the United
States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because Mr. Dibrell’s
claims fall outside the scope of the Court of Federal Claims’
jurisdiction, we affirm.
I
In 2014, Mr. Dibrell claims the police in Knoxville,
Tennessee improperly conducted a search of his car that led
to his wrongful imprisonment for four years. Mr. Dibrell
also alleges that the Knoxville News Sentinel published an
article about him that contained false and defamatory
statements regarding criminal allegations against him.
On November 9, 2023, Mr. Dibrell filed a complaint
and corresponding exhibit in the Court of Federal Claims.
The complaint named a variety of local, state, and federal
government actors including judges, law enforcement
officers, and politicians as defendants. It does not name the
United States as a defendant. And while Mr. Dibrell’s
complaint cites various legal provisions, it ultimately
appears to bring two claims: (1) a civil rights violation
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by the Knoxville Police
Department, and (2) a claim of defamation by the Knoxville
News Sentinel. S.A. 16–17.1
The government moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)
of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims. Dibrell v.
United States, No. 22-1983C, (Fed. Cl. Jan. 8, 2024), ECF
No. 5. In its Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the government argued
Mr. Dibrell’s complaint should be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because “Mr. Dibrell’s
1 References to S.A. refer to the Supplemental
Appendix filed with the agency’s brief.
Case: 24-1724 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 12/18/2024

-- 2 of 7 --

DIBRELL v. US 3
complaint does not explain how his claims fall within the
scope of the Tucker Act.” Id. at 2.
The Court of Federal Claims agreed and dismissed
Mr. Dibrell’s complaint, holding that he failed to raise a
claim within the court’s jurisdiction. S.A. 3–5.
Mr. Dibrell timely appealed. We have jurisdiction
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. Trusted
Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163
(Fed. Cir. 2011). “[J]urisdiction [must] be established as a
threshold matter.” Weishan Hongda Aquatic Food Co. v.
United States, 917 F.3d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019). As the
plaintiff, Mr. Dibrell bears the burden of establishing
jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Brandt v.
United States, 710 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Although we give pro se plaintiffs more latitude in their
pleadings than parties represented by counsel, Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), such leniency does not
relieve them of jurisdictional requirements, Kelley v. Sec’y,
U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The Court of Federal Claims “is a court of specific civil
jurisdiction.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 379
(Fed. Cir. 1994). Under the Tucker Act, the source of the
Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction, the Court of Federal
Claims’ jurisdiction is limited to “claims for money
damages against the United States.” Fisher v. United
States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491). The Tucker Act alone does not
supply an independent source of action; a plaintiff “must
identify a separate source of substantive law that creates
the right to money damages.” Id. “[T]he absence of a
money-mandating source [is] fatal to the court’s
jurisdiction under the Tucker Act.” Id. at 1173.
Case: 24-1724 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 12/18/2024

-- 3 of 7 --

DIBRELL v. US 4
The Court of Federal Claims correctly concluded that it
lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Dibrell’s complaint. As a
threshold matter, Mr. Dibrell does not assert any claims
against the United States. Instead, Mr. Dibrell appears to
have brought one claim against the Knoxville Police
Department and one claim against the Knoxville News
Sentinel. But, as the Court of Federal Claims correctly
noted, “any claim by Mr. Dibrell that fails to designate the
United States itself as the defendant is necessarily outside
[the Court of Federal Claims’] jurisdiction.” S.A. 3 (citing
RCFC 10(a) (providing that the United States must be the
designated defendant in cases before the Court of Federal
Claims)). And while Mr. Dibrell’s complaint names
individuals who are federal officers, there are no factual
allegations explaining how those federal officers were
involved in any of the factual allegations or were acting as
agents of the United States. S.A. 3; see also United States
v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (The Court of
Federal Claims is “without jurisdiction of any suit brought
against private parties[.]”); Burns v. United States, No. 18-
382C, 2018 WL 2996918, at *2 (Fed. Cl. June 15, 2018)
(The Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over
“private individuals, even where those individuals are
officers or employees of the government.”); Pease v. United
States, No. 10-556C, 2011 WL 539116, at *3 (Fed. Cl.
Feb. 8, 2011) (The Court of Federal Claims lacks
jurisdiction over “nonfederal parties who are not agents of
the United States.”).
Even if any of Mr. Dibrell’s allegations could be
construed to be against the United States itself, the
underlying nature of the claims place them outside the
scope of the Tucker Act.
Mr. Dibrell’s first claim, a civil rights violation under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 by the Knoxville Police Department, falls
within the federal district courts’ exclusive jurisdiction.
See, e.g., Brashear v. United States, 776 F. App’x 679, 683
(Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[C]ivil rights claims brought pursuant to
Case: 24-1724 Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 12/18/2024

-- 4 of 7 --

DIBRELL v. US 5
§ 1983 are under the exclusive jurisdiction of federal
district courts.”). Thus, the Court of Federal Claims
correctly concluded it “does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over civil rights claims arising under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.” S.A. 3.
Mr. Dibrell’s second claim, a claim of defamation by the
Knoxville News Sentinel, is a tort law cause of action. See
Woods v. United States, 122 F. App’x 989, 991 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (“The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited
jurisdiction, and claims sounding in tort, such as
defamation, are outside the jurisdiction of the court.”).
Under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims “lacks
jurisdiction over tort actions against the United States.”
Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)). Thus, the Court of Federal
Claims correctly concluded it “lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over Mr. Dibrell’s defamation claim.” S.A. 4.
To the extent Mr. Dibrell’s complaint included claims
alleging either criminal violations or constitutional
violations against the United States,2 the Court of Federal
Claims correctly concluded it lacks jurisdiction over those
claims.
Regarding any claim that alleges criminal violations,
the Court of Federal Claims correctly determined it “lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under
criminal law.” S.A. 4 (citing Dziekonski v. United States,
120 Fed. Cl. 806, 811 (2015) (“Assuming plaintiff were to
make out a cognizable criminal violation claim, the Court
of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to entertain criminal
matters.”)); see also Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378,
2 While Mr. Dibrell’s complaint cites numerous
provisions of law that includes criminal statutes and
constitutional provisions, it only brings counts of civil
rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and defamation.
Case: 24-1724 Document: 19 Page: 5 Filed: 12/18/2024

-- 5 of 7 --

DIBRELL v. US 6
379–80 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming that the Court of
Federal Claims had “no jurisdiction to adjudicate any
claims whatsoever under the federal criminal code[.]”).
Regarding any claim that alleges constitutional
violations under the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
Amendments, the Court of Federal Claims correctly
concluded it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because
“neither the Fourth, Sixth, nor Fourteenth Amendment
contain a money-mandating provision.” S.A. 4; see also
Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(“Because monetary damages are not available for a Fourth
Amendment violation, the Court of Federal Claims does
not have jurisdiction over such a violation.”); Drake v.
United States, 792 F. App’x 916 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“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.”); LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d
1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (concluding that the Due
Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment do not provide “a sufficient basis for
jurisdiction because they do not mandate payment of
money by the government”). And the Court of Federal
Claims correctly determined it lacks jurisdiction under the
Fifth Amendment, “other than pursuant to the Takings
Clause, which is not a provision under which Mr. Dibrell
brings his claims.” S.A. 4 (citing Ogden v. United States,
61 Fed. Cl. 44, 47 (2004) ("[T]he Court of Federal Claims
has clear jurisdiction only with respect to constitutional
claims founded on the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment, as other amendments to the Constitution do
not, of themselves, mandate payment for violations."); see
also LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(holding the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
is not a sufficient basis for jurisdiction).
III
Case: 24-1724 Document: 19 Page: 6 Filed: 12/18/2024

-- 6 of 7 --

DIBRELL v. US 7
We have considered the remainder of Mr. Dibrell’s
arguments and find them unpersuasive. Because
Mr. Dibrell’s claims are outside the jurisdiction of the Court
of Federal Claims, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1724 Document: 19 Page: 7 Filed: 12/18/2024

-- 7 of 7 --