green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
6.0 score
“neither the americans with disabilities act nor the civil rights act so mandates compensation. the americans with disabilities act does not cover the federal government. see 42 u.s.c. 12111 (2), (5), 12112 (1994).”
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 35 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Wilcock v. United States
neither the americans with disabilities act nor the civil rights act so mandates compensation. the americans with disabilities act does not cover the federal government. see 42 u.s.c. 12111 (2), (5), 12112 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dziekonski v. United States
the does not cover the federal government
cited
Cited "see"
P AMELA J. S HARP v. Anthony J. Principi
See Owings v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 17, 23 (1995) (noting distinction between recipients of and applicants for benefits), ajfd, 86 F.3d 1178 (Fed.Cir.1996) (table).
cited
Cited "see"
Earth Island Institute v. Daley
See Earth Island Institute v. Christopher, 20 CIT -, 922 F.Supp. 616 , appeals dismissed, 86 F.3d 1178 (Fed.Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Earth Island Institute v. Christopher
Apparently it was not, for not only did the defendants and intervenor-defendant not appeal the April 10, 1996 final judgment in a timely manner, their prior appeals were subsequently ordered dismissed: See 86 F.3d 1178 (Fed.Cir.1996).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Parker Hannifin Corp. v. United States
Id; see also Alaska v. United States, 32 Fed.Cl. 689, 695 (1995), appeal dismissed, 86 F.3d 1178 (Fed.Cir.1996) (describing standard of review on motion to dismiss). 2.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sindram v. United States
See 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (“The term “public entity” means — (A) any State or local government; (B) any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government; and (C) the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and any commuter authority (as defined in section 24102(4) of Title 49).”); see also Boddie v. United States, 86 F.3d 1178 , 1178 (Fed.Cir.1996) (“The Americans with Disabilities Act does not cover the federal government.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Scarseth v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4), has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); accord Hamlet v. United States,…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lamirage, Inc. v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); accord Hamlet v. United States, 873 F.2d 1414, 1416 (Fed.Cir.1989); see also Alaska v. United States, 32 Fed.Cl. 689, 695…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Spodek v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); accord Hamlet v. United States, 873 F.2d 1414, 1416 (Fed.Cir.1989); see also Alaska v. United States, 32 Fed.Cl. 689, 695…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Knowles v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); accord Hamlet v. United States, 873 F.2d 1414, 1416 (Fed.Cir.1989); see also Alaska v. United States, 32 Fed.Cl. 689, 695…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hamilton Securities Advisory Services, Inc. v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and/or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); accord …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wolcott v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); accord Hamlet v. United States, 873 F.2d 1414, 1416 (Fed.Cir.1989); see also Alaska v. United States, 32 Fed.Cl. 689, 695…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nutrite Corp. v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); accord Hamlet v. United States, 873 F.2d 1414, 1416 (Fed.Cir.1989); see also Alaska v. United States, 32 Fed.Cl. 689, 695…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Moncrief v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); accord Hamlet v. United States, 873 F.2d 1414, 1416 (Fed.Cir.1989); see also Alaska v. United St…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sherwin v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), and/or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4), has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Buesing v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), 5 has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); accord Hamlet v. United States, 873 F.2d 1414, 1416 (Fed.Cir.1989)…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dodson Livestock Co. v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), and/or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4), has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Abramson v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), and/or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4), as in the instant case, has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Sche…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dureiko v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), and/or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4), as in the instant case, has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Sche…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sunrise Village Mobile Home Park, L.C. v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), and/or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4), as in the instant case, has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Sche…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kentucky Bridge & Dam, Inc. v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), 7 has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); accord Hamlet v. United States, 873 F.2d 1414, 1416 (Fed.Cir.1989)…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Adams v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), and/or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4), has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Green v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), and/or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4), has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
International Fidelity Insurance v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), and a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4), has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Celentano v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), and/or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4), has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Synernet Corp. v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), and/or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4), has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
PCL Construction Services, Inc. v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), and/or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4), as in the instant case, has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Sche…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pacific National Cellular v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), and/or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4), 3 has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carlow v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), and/or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4), has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bailey v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), and/or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4), has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Massie v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Ap peals for the Federal Circuit as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232,236 , 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1686 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shrader v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), and/or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4), has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be cons…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
C C Distributors, Inc. v. United States
The standard for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), has been articulated by the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 , 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1686 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974);…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kalamazoo Contractors, Inc. v. United States
The basic standards for weighing the evidence presented by the parties when evaluating a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), have been articulated by the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as follows: “in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 , 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1686 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lillie M. Boddie
v.
United States
v.
United States
96-5060.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Jun 21, 1996.
86 F.3d 1178
Cited by 1 opinion | Unpublished
Citer courts: Federal Claims (2)
NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
Lillie M. BODDIE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 96-5060.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
May 14, 1996.
Rehearing Denied; Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc Declined
June 21, 1996.
Before PLAGER, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and SCHALL, Circuit Judge.
DECISION
PER CURIAM.
1
The decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the petitioner Lillie M. Boddie's complaint seeking damages for the United States Army's alleged mistreatment of her, is affirmed.
OPINION
I.
2
According to her complaint, Ms. Boddie suffered two assaults as a young woman, including a rape by a sergeant in the United States Army. Later Ms. Boddie herself joined the Army, and she alleges that certain officers failed to give proper consideration to psychological difficulties she faced as a result of the assaults. Furthermore, she contends that she was court-martialed unfairly and that since her discharge from the Army, she has not received proper veterans' benefits. She seeks damages of $24 million and other relief.
3
Ms. Boddie cites the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (1994), the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596 (1994), and the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613 (1994), as giving the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over her complaint. She cites Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (1994), the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (1994), and several amendments to the Constitution as entitling her to monetary compensation.
4
Construing her claims liberally because she acted pro se, the Court of Federal Claims concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Ms. Boddie's claims. We affirm, but on the alternative ground that she failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
II.
5
Of the three statutes Ms. Boddie cites as creating jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims, only one applies. The Back Pay Act is not a jurisdictional statute. See Spagnola v. Stockman, 732 F.2d 908, 912 (Fed.Cir.1984); United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 887 (Fed Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1065 (1984). The Contract Disputes Act is not applicable to Ms. Boddie's claim, which does not deal with a government contract.
6
The Tucker Act does confer jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims, but "it does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages." United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). As a result, to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Ms. Boddie would have had to invoke another statute or constitutional provision that "can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained." Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United States, 372 F.2d 1002, 1009 (Ct.Cl.1967).
7
Neither the Americans with Disabilities Act nor the Civil Rights Act so mandates compensation. The Americans with Disabilities Act does not cover the federal government. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111(2), (5), 12112 (1994). The Court of Federal Claims has no authority to award relief under the Civil Rights Act, since the United States District Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims under that act. See Bunch v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 337, 341 (1995), aff'd, 78 F.3d 605 (Fed.Cir.1996).
8
None of the constitutional amendments Ms. Boddie invokes "contain[s] language which could fairly be interpreted as mandating recovery of compensation from the government." Cummings v. United States, 17 Cl.Ct. 475, 479 (1989), aff'd, 904 F.2d 45 (Fed.Cir.1990). Accordingly, Ms. Boddie has not stated a claim upon which the Court of Federal Claims could grant relief, and that court correctly dismissed her complaint.