Ronald Bass, Sr. v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RONALD BASS, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1321
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-01999-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink.
______________________
Decided: August 7, 2024
______________________
RONALD BASS , SR., North Plainfield, NJ, pro se.
STEPHEN J. SMITH , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, L ISA L. D ONAHUE, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 24-1321 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 08/07/2024

-- 1 of 5 --

BASS v. US 2
Ronald Bass, Sr. appeals from the United States Court
of Federal Claims’ dismissal of his complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we
affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Bass filed a complaint against the United States,
asserting subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act,
28 U.S.C. § 1491. He sought damages arising from “inju-
ries and assault” by medical personnel and “unjust convic-
tion and imprisonment.” S.A. 8.1 The complaint alleged
that Mr. Bass “was a target for medical monitoring for
physiologic and pathologic investigation for the noxious
agents which [Mr. Bass] was injected with and subjected to
by UMDNJ University Hospital.”2 S.A. 10. Specifically,
Mr. Bass sought damages for injuries as a result of long-
term use of a prescribed opioid. The complaint also in-
cluded claims of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment viola-
tions and requested $5 billion in damages. Mr. Bass
further requested the Court of Federal Claims to issue a
restraining order against U.S. government agencies to
cease and desist unlawful acts against Mr. Bass and his
family.
The Court of Federal Claims concluded that it lacked
jurisdiction over Mr. Bass’s complaint. First, the court
noted that Mr. Bass’s claims are tort claims—relating to a
physical injury to his person—and therefore are specifi-
cally excluded from the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdic-
tion. The court determined that it “may not exercise
jurisdiction over Mr. Bass’s case because his claims all re-
late to a physical injury to his person—unconsented
1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix in-
cluded with the government’s informal brief.
2 “UMDNJ” refers to the University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey.
Case: 24-1321 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 08/07/2024

-- 2 of 5 --

BASS v. US 3
injection—and the physical and mental harms resulting
from it.” S.A. 2.
Second, the Court of Federal Claims concluded that it
“may only exercise jurisdiction over Fifth Amendment
cases in limited instances—when the government’s action
constitutes an illegal taking of property—and . . . may not
redress Fourteenth Amendment claims.” S.A. 2. Because
the court determined that Mr. Bass’s claims involved per-
sonal injury, it found no taking of property over which the
court could exercise jurisdiction.
Third, the Court of Federal Claims concluded that
Mr. Bass’s non-monetary, injunctive relief was also outside
its jurisdiction. The court noted that only in “very narrow
circumstances” may it grant injunctive relief, such as mat-
ters involving government contracts, which are inapplica-
ble to Mr. Bass’s claims. S.A. 3.
Mr. Bass timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction un-
der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
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 federal tribunal of
limited jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (known as the
Tucker Act). In the Tucker Act, Congress waived sovereign
immunity for certain actions for monetary relief against
the United States. See id. Plaintiffs who pursue claims
under the Tucker Act “must identify a separate source of
substantive law that creates the right to money damages.”
Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc in relevant part).
Mr. Bass seeks $5 billion in compensation for alleged
injuries resulting from unconsented injections at the state-
run UMDNJ, including “wrongful imprisonment, medical
Case: 24-1321 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 08/07/2024

-- 3 of 5 --

BASS v. US 4
damages, emotional distress, and vicarious psychological
and physical harm to his son.” S.A. 1. Mr. Bass alleges a
violation of his rights under the First, Fourth, Sixth, and
Fourteenth Amendments, as well as battery, trespassing,
and defamation-of-character claims, among others.
Under the Tucker Act,
The United States Court of Federal Claims shall
have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any
claim 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) (emphasis added). Mr. Bass’s com-
plaint involves tort claims resulting from his alleged phys-
ical injuries, which the Tucker Act expressly excludes. See
Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d
1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Court of Federal Claims
therefore did not err in dismissing such claims.
Additionally, claims based on statutory or constitu-
tional provisions require the plaintiff to identify a “money-
mandating” source of law. “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.” Fisher
402 F.3d at 1172. Here, Mr. Bass fails to identify a sepa-
rate source of law that creates the right to money damages
for his claims. Most provisions Mr. Bass cites, including
the Fourteenth Amendment, are not a money-mandating
source of law against the United States. E.g., LeBlanc. v.
United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (conclud-
ing that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Four-
teenth Amendments are not money mandating). And while
he does cite one provision that can support a claim “for
Case: 24-1321 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 08/07/2024

-- 4 of 5 --

BASS v. US 5
damages by any person unjustly convicted of an offense
against the United States and imprisoned,” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1495, he has not pleaded that he was wrongfully impris-
oned by the United States. Therefore, the Court of Federal
Claims correctly concluded that it “must dismiss because
there is no jurisdiction over any claim asserted by plain-
tiff.” S.A. 3.3
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Bass’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
3 Although we have also considered Mr. Bass’s sup-
plemental submissions in this case, ECF Nos. 14, 17, 20,
21, 22, 23; they do not change our conclusion.
Case: 24-1321 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 08/07/2024

-- 5 of 5 --