Mack v. United States

8 Citing cases

  1. Kizas v. Webster

    707 F.2d 524 (D.C. Cir. 1983)   Cited 220 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs were precluded from pursuing sex and race discrimination claims directly under the Fifth Amendment because Title VII provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment

    " Id. at 940. See also Mack v. United States, 635 F.2d 828, 832 (Ct.Cl. 1980) (provisions of Veterans' Preference Act "do not create an interest in property subject to being taken for public use"), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1988, 68 L.Ed.2d 304 (1981).Johnston v. United States, supra note 53, 175 F.2d at 617 (emphasis in original) (quoting statutory predecessor of 5 U.S.C. § 5536).

  2. Hoffman v. City of Warwick

    909 F.2d 608 (1st Cir. 1990)   Cited 66 times
    Determining whether "language and circumstances" of Rhode Island benefits statute reveal "a legislative intent to create private contractual rights"

    Thus, statutory preferences or benefits conferred upon veterans do not give rise to compensable property rights. See Monacov. United States, 523 F.2d 935, 939 (9th Cir. 1975) (Veterans Preference Act, which gave veterans preference to retention in civil service, did not confer "a vested, unrepealable" right to such preference), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 914, 96 S.Ct. 1114, 47 L.Ed.2d 319 (1976); Mack v. United States, 635 F.2d 828, 832, 225 Ct.Cl. 187 (1980) ("Plaintiff does not have a taking claim under the just compensation clause because the provisions of the Veterans Preference Act cited by plaintiff that establish applicant eligibility lists do not create an interest in property subject to being taken for public use."), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1988, 68 L.Ed.2d 304 (1981); Milliken v. Gleason, 332 F.2d 122, 123 (1st Cir. 1964) ("[V]eterans' benefits are gratuities and establish no vested rights in the recipients so that they may be withdrawn by Congress at any time and under such conditions as Congress may impose."), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002, 85 S.Ct. 723, 13 L.Ed.2d 703 (1965); Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 576-77, 54 S.Ct. 840, 842, 78 L.Ed. 1434 (1934) ("Pensions, compensation allowances and privileges [accorded to former members of the army and navy] are gratuities.

  3. Inupiat Community of Arctic Slope v. U.S.

    680 F.2d 122 (Fed. Cir. 1982)   Cited 17 times

    We have frequently and consistently held, however, that we have no jurisdiction over claims for money based upon the government's alleged violation of the due process clause. Conservative Caucus, Inc. v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. ___, 650 F.2d 1206 (1981); Mack v. United States, 225 Ct.Cl. ___, 635 F.2d 828 (1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1988, 68 L.Ed.2d 304 (1981); Carruth v. United States, 224 Ct.Cl. ___, 627 F.2d 1068 (1980). The Inupiats point to Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979), which implied a cause of action for damages based upon violation of the due process clause.

  4. Postels v. Peters

    Civ. No. 99-2369, SECTION: "R" (5) (E.D. La. Mar. 15, 2000)   Cited 2 times
    Dismissing the plaintiff's claim against the Air Force without prejudice because the plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies

    Finally, it is well established that the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over claims asserting due process violations under the Fifth Amendment because such violations do not obligate the federal government to pay money damages. See Womack v. United States, 34 Fed. Cl. 755, 762 n. 6 (1996); Noel v. United States, 16 Cl. Ct. 166, 169 (1989) (citations omitted); JL Janitorial Servs., Inc. v. United States, 231 Ct. Cl. 837 (1982) ( citing Carruth v. United States, 627 F.2d 1068 (1980); Mack v. United States, 635 F.2d 828 (1980)). See also Quailes v. United States, 25 Cl. Ct. 659, 664 (1992), aff'd, 979 F.2d 216 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (no jurisdiction over Navy serviceman's claim that discharge violated Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of due process and equal protection because these claims do not obligate United States to pay money damages and therefore do not trigger Tucker Act jurisdiction). Because the relief Postels seeks would not obligate the United States to pay money damages, the Tucker Act does not vest exclusive jurisdiction over this case in the Court of Federal Claims. Accordingly, the Court rejects defendant's motion to dismiss on this ground.

  5. Vulcan Pioneers v. N.J. Dept. of Civil Service

    588 F. Supp. 727 (D.N.J. 1984)   Cited 2 times

    Moreover, as the court notes, one is not by this decision irrevocably deprived of a promotion, but merely required to take another examination if promotion is desired. In thus differentiating between vested benefits on the one hand and expected benefits on the other, the court here applies a settled distinction, both with respect to the takings clause, see, e.g., Mack v. United States, 635 F.2d 828, 832, 225 Ct.Cl. 187 (1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1988, 68 L.Ed.2d 304 (1981); Portland General Electric Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 328 F.2d 165, 173 (9th Cir. 1964), and with respect to the definition of a property interest for purposes of the due process clause. See, e.g., Robb v. City of Philadelphia, 733 F.2d 286, at 292-93 (3d Cir. 1984) (property interest in continued employment, but not promotion); Estes v. Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, 696 F.2d 898, 901 (11th Cir. 1983) (no property interest in a salary increase); MacFarlane v. Grasso, 696 F.2d 217, 221-22 (2d Cir. 1982) (no property interest in appointment to a particular job); Beitzell v. Jeffrey, 643 F.2d 870, 876 (1st Cir. 1981) (no property interest in promotion to a tenured position); Gaballah v. Johnson, 629 F.2d 1191, 1202 (7th Cir. 1980) (no property interest in promotion).

  6. Hammitt v. U.S.

    No. 05-173 C (Fed. Cl. Mar. 23, 2005)   Cited 1 times

    While noting that the Fifth Amendment, which applies the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal government, "guarantees to individuals a basic standard of fairness, i.e., equal protection, in dealing with the federal government," the Claims Court iterated that "the equal protection clause . . . does not create a cause of action for money damages" and thus its violation may not be the basis for jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. Id. at 570-71 (citing Mack v. United States, 635 F.2d 828, 832 (Ct.Cl. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913 (1981); Connolly v. United States, 554 F. Supp. 1250, 1260 (Cl.Ct. 1982), rev'd on other grounds by 716 F.2d 882 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1065 (1984); andRogers v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 39, 49-50 (1987), aff'd, 861 F.2d 729 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1034 (1989)). The court also denied jurisdiction based on plaintiff's allegations that "the United States and/or federal officers acted negligently and with `a continuous lack of concern or a careless disregard,'" because "such claims sound in tort and . . . are likewise without the jurisdiction of this court."

  7. Arctic King Fisheries, Inc. v. U.S.

    No. 99-49C (Fed. Cl. Feb. 11, 2004)   Cited 5 times

    Cases, indeed, are legion that hold that the bare receipt of benefits under a statute is not a property interest within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. See, e.g., United States R.R. Ret. Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174 (1980) ("There is no claim here that Congress has taken property in violation of the Fifth Amendment, since railroad benefits, like social security benefits, are not contractual and may be altered or even eliminated at any time."); Zucker v. United States, 758 F.2d 637, 640 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ("a 'government fostered expectation' that retirees will be provided retirement annuities which will not be ravaged by inflation . . . does not rise to the level of 'property' protected by the takings clause"), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 842 (1985); Mack v. United States, 635 F.2d 828, 832 (Ct. Cl. 1980) ("Plaintiff does not have a taking claim under the just compensation clause because the provisions of the Veterans' Preference Act cited by plaintiff . . . that establish applicant eligibility lists do not create an interest in property subject to being taken for public use."), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913 (1981).

  8. Nick v. Montana Dept. of Highways

    219 Mont. 168 (Mont. 1985)   Cited 4 times

    " 523 F.2d at 940. See also Kizas v. Webster (D.C. Cir. 1983), 707 F.2d 524 and Mack v. United States (Ct. of Claims 1980), 635 F.2d 828. Nick does not have a reliance interest in the veterans' preference unless and until it is actually received.