Edmond George Parenteau, William Hercules Davis, Jr., Revette Marcella Harvey, Marc… v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
EDMOND GEORGE PARENTEAU, WILLIAM
HERCULES DAVIS, JR., REVETTE MARCELLA
HARVEY, MARC DAVID WISHENGRAD, AMY
MERCURY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-2140
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-00736-KCD, Judge Kathryn C. Davis.
______________________
Decided: May 6, 2025
______________________
EDMOND G EORGE P ARENTEAU, I, Guilford, NY, pro se.
WILLIAM D AVIS , J R., Morehead, NC, pro se.
REVETTE MARCELLA HARVEY , Riverdale, GA, pro se.
MARC D AVID WISHENGRAD, New York, NY, pro se.
AMY MERCURY , Amherst, MA, pro se.
Case: 24-2140 Document: 226 Page: 1 Filed: 05/06/2025

-- 1 of 7 --

PARENTEAU v. US 2
ALEXANDER BREWER , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA B URKE, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
Edmond G. Parenteau, William H. Davis, Jr., Revette
M. Harvey, Marc D. Wishengrad, and Amy Mercury (col-
lectively, “appellants”) filed complaints in the United
States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) seeking in-
junctive relief prohibiting state enforcement of traffic laws
against them, as well as $6,000,000 in damages each. The
Claims Court dismissed the complaints for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction. Memorandum Opinion and Order at
1, Parenteau v. United States, No. 24-736 (Fed. Cl. June 18,
2024), ECF No. 5 (Opinion). On appeal, we affirm.
I
On May 7, 2024, appellants filed complaints in the
Claims Court alleging that they were unlawfully subjected
to traffic enforcement in several states: New York, New
Jersey, Georgia, North Carolina, and Massachusetts.1
Complaint at 2, Parenteau v. United States, No. 24-736
(Fed. Cl. May 7, 2024), ECF No. 1 (Complaint); Govern-
ment Supplemental Appendix (S. Appx.) 1–2. Referring to
state departments of motor vehicles (DMVs), appellants re-
quested an injunction against the United States and vari-
ous “State[] Instrumentalit[ie]s such as DMV
Departments” to prevent enforcement of “corporate DMV
1 The complaints contain “both joint and separate al-
legations . . . for each [appellant].” Opinion, at 1 n.1. We
cite primarily to Mr. Parenteau’s complaint, which is the
“most inclusive of the five.” Id. at 5.
Case: 24-2140 Document: 226 Page: 2 Filed: 05/06/2025

-- 2 of 7 --

PARENTEAU v. US 3
statutes, codes[,] and regulations,” Complaint, at 2, as well
as $6,000,000 in damages for each appellant, id. at 8. The
complaints refer to occasions on which appellants were
fined or arrested by state government officials in connec-
tion with asserting their “right to freely travel without in-
terference as one exempt from all DMV statutory
[a]uthority and jurisdiction.” See, e.g., id. at 7–8.
The Claims Court dismissed the complaints sua sponte
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on June 18, 2024, un-
der Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the United States Court of
Federal Claims. Opinion, at 1; see also Judgment at 1,
Parenteau v. United States, No. 24-736 (Fed. Cl. June 20,
2024), ECF No. 6. The Claims Court identified three bases
for dismissing the complaints: (1) appellants’ claims did not
involve actions of the United States, Opinion, at 4; (2) ap-
pellants did not identify “a money-mandating source of law
that could provide a basis for an award of damages,” id. at
5; and (3) appellants sought injunctive relief that was not
“tied and subordinate to” a money judgment, id. at 6. See
28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)–(2).
Appellants filed a timely appeal to this court, see 28
U.S.C. § 2522, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(3).
II
This court reviews the Claims Court’s legal conclusions
de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Bannum,
Inc. v. United States, 779 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
We review the Claims Court’s determination of its own ju-
risdiction in this case without deference because “the
Claims Court based its ruling on the motion [to dismiss]
entirely on unchallenged jurisdictional facts and did not
adjudicate any challenges to jurisdictional allegations of
fact.” Ravi v. United States, 104 F.4th 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
2024) (internal citations omitted); see also Taylor v. United
States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Case: 24-2140 Document: 226 Page: 3 Filed: 05/06/2025

-- 3 of 7 --

PARENTEAU v. US 4
The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)–(2), grants the
Claims Court jurisdiction over claims “against the United
States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of
Congress 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 sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); see Abbey v.
United States, 745 F.3d 1363, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
“[T]he Tucker Act constitutes a waiver of sovereign immun-
ity with respect to those [specified] claims,” but “does not
create substantive rights, which must be found in other
sources of law, like statutes or contracts.” Ravi, 104 F.4th
at 1363 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing United
States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983); Maine Com-
munity Health Options v. United States, 590 U.S. 296, 322
(2020)).
Of the three bases for the Claims Court’s dismissal, ap-
pellants do not challenge the third: i.e., they do not chal-
lenge the dismissal of claims for injunctive relief.
Appellants challenge only the Claims Court’s rationales
that appellants’ claims did not involve actions of the United
States and that appellants did not identify a money-man-
dating source of law. See Parenteau Informal Br. at 1–7.2
We address those challenges in turn.
A
The Claims Court’s jurisdiction under the Tucker Act
requires that claims be “against the United States.” 28
U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); see United States v. Sherwood, 312
U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (“[I]f the relief sought is against others
than the United States[,] the suit as to them must be
2 Citations are to Mr. Parenteau’s Corrected Open-
ing Brief, ECF No. 161. The corresponding briefs of the
other appellants are materially identical. See ECF Nos.
162–64, 167.
Case: 24-2140 Document: 226 Page: 4 Filed: 05/06/2025

-- 4 of 7 --

PARENTEAU v. US 5
ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court.”). To meet
this requirement, there must be “substantive allegations”
against the United States: It is insufficient, without more,
that the plaintiff “literally name[] the United States as the
sole defendant.” May Co., Inc. v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl.
414, 416 (1997); cf. Beauvais v. United States, No. 24-1353,
2024 WL 2860170, at *1 (Fed. Cir. June 6, 2024) (nonprec-
edential) (no subject-matter jurisdiction where complaint
“list[ed] the United States” but allegations related only to
other entities); Jaye v. United States, 781 F. Appx. 994, 998
(Fed. Cir. 2019) (nonprecedential) (same); Doiban v. United
States, 173 Fed. Cl. 527, 535–36 (2024) (collecting cases).
Such allegations are essential for the claim of liability of
the United States to be non-frivolous, a requirement for ju-
risdiction. See Columbus Regional Hospital v. United
States, 990 F.3d 1330, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (no jurisdiction
over frivolous allegation within a Tucker Act category).
Appellants argue that they “did in fact assert allega-
tions against the United States,” Parenteau Informal Br.
at 5, but the content of appellants’ complaints indicates
that there are no “substantive allegations” against the
United States. May, 38 Fed. Cl. at 416; see Brazos Electric
Power Cooperative, Inc. v. United States, 144 F.3d 784, 787
(Fed. Cir. 1988) (“[W]e customarily look to the substance of
the pleadings rather than their form.”). The Claims Court
correctly explained that “each [appellant’s] factual allega-
tions concern . . . incident(s) where state entities or officials
enforced traffic laws against him or her” and “d[id] not in-
volve actions of the United States.” Opinion, at 4. There
are no non-frivolous allegations that make the United
States liable.
B
To come within the Claims Court’s jurisdiction under
the Tucker Act, appellants’ claims must be founded in a
“money-mandating source” of substantive law. See Fisher
v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172–73 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Case: 24-2140 Document: 226 Page: 5 Filed: 05/06/2025

-- 5 of 7 --

PARENTEAU v. US 6
(“The Tucker Act itself does not create a substantive cause
of action; in order to come within the jurisdictional reach
and the waiver of the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify
a separate source of substantive law that creates the right
to money damages.” (citing Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 216)); 28
U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Appellants have not met this require-
ment.
Appellants argue that the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment of the Constitution provides the requisite
money-mandating source of substantive law. See
Parenteau Informal Br. at 5. This argument must fail for
at least two reasons. First, appellants do not explain why
the Takings Clause applies to their claims. Second, they
did not plead a takings claim to the Claims Court, see Com-
plaint, at 1–10, and a claim not properly presented in the
trial court is forfeited, San Carlos Apache Tribe v. United
States, 639 F.3d 1346, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations
omitted).
Appellants also argue that 15 U.S.C. § 1125, a provi-
sion of the Lanham Act, provides the requisite money-man-
dating source of substantive law. Parenteau Informal Br.
at 5. But district courts, not the Claims Court, have juris-
diction over “all actions arising under” the Lanham Act.
See 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a); Proxtronics Dosimetry, LLC v.
United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 656, 672 (2016) (“It is an unre-
markable proposition that the Court of Federal Claims
lacks jurisdiction over Lanham Act claims.”). Because the
Lanham Act names the district courts as the proper federal
forum, the Claims Court lacks Tucker Act jurisdiction. See
United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6, 11–13 (2012).
III
We have reviewed the remainder of appellants’ argu-
ments in their various filings and find them unpersuasive.
We affirm the Claims Court’s decision to dismiss appel-
lants’ claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Case: 24-2140 Document: 226 Page: 6 Filed: 05/06/2025

-- 6 of 7 --

PARENTEAU v. US 7
The parties shall bear their own costs.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-2140 Document: 226 Page: 7 Filed: 05/06/2025

-- 7 of 7 --