Eric Davon Davis v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ERIC DAVON DAVIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1414
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-01522-TMD, Judge Thompson M. Dietz.
______________________
Decided: July 9, 2026
______________________
ERIC D AVON D AVIS , Moreno Valley, CA, pro se.
YARIV S. P IERCE , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by T ARA
K. HOGAN, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY , BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
Before CHEN, CUNNINGHAM , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 26-1414 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 07/09/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

DAVIS v. US 2
Eric Davon Davis, who sued the United States after his
passport application was denied, appeals the decision of
the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court)
dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure
to state a claim. See Davis v. United States, No. 25-1522,
2026 WL 266779, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 2, 2026) (Decision).
Because we determine that Mr. Davis’s regulatory takings
claim lacks a legally cognizable property interest, we af-
firm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Davis alleged that on September 18, 2024, the
United States Department of State issued a letter denying
his passport application. Decision, 2026 WL 266779, at *1.
The State Department stated that Mr. Davis “was ineligi-
ble to receive passport services because the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) certified that he owed
child support.” Id. (cleaned up).
Mr. Davis then filed a complaint against the United
States in the Claims Court, seeking $498,400,000 for
breach of contract and a Fifth Amendment taking. Id. In
part, Mr. Davis alleged that he is entitled to “contractual
treble damages under unrebutted private contract terms”
and that “denial of his passport application” constitutes an
“uncompensated taking of a cognizable property interest.”
Id.
The Claims Court determined that Mr. Davis failed to
properly allege the existence of a contract between himself
and the United States, dismissing his breach of contract
claim for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at *3. As to the Fifth
Amendment takings claim, the Claims Court held that (1)
the claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim be-
cause the right to international travel and a passport are
not cognizable property interests subject to the protections
of the Takings Clause, and (2) to the extent that his takings
claim is construed as a Fifth Amendment due process
claim, the court lacks jurisdiction. Id. at *2, *4.
Case: 26-1414 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 07/09/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

DAVIS v. US 3
Mr. Davis timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review the dismissal for lack of subject-matter ju-
risdiction de novo. Taylor v. United States, 959 F.3d 1081,
1086 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). We also review
the dismissal for failure to state a claim on which relief can
be granted de novo. Id. (citation omitted). In doing so, we
accept the well-pleaded factual allegations as true and
draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
On appeal, Mr. Davis argues that the Claims Court
mischaracterized the asserted property interest as the
physical passport and that he plausibly alleged a taking
based on “the government’s prolonged, unjustified with-
holding of [the passport] and the resulting economic
harm.”1 Appellant Br. 1.
We are not persuaded. “[A]s a threshold matter, the
court must determine whether the claimant has estab-
lished a property interest for purposes of the Fifth Amend-
ment.” Am. Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d
1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (emphasis added) (citation
omitted). The Claims Court correctly identified two pur-
ported property interests from Mr. Davis’s allegations:
(1) the right to international travel and (2) the passport it-
self. See Decision, 2026 WL 266779, at *4. Neither meets
a legally cognizable property interest for a taking.
First, as the Claims Court correctly recognized, “the
‘right’ of international travel has been considered to be no
more than an aspect of the ‘liberty’ protected by the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” Haig v. Agee, 453
1 Mr. Davis does not appeal the Claims Court’s dis-
missal of his breach of contract claim.
Case: 26-1414 Document: 29 Page: 3 Filed: 07/09/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

DAVIS v. US 4
U.S. 280, 307 (1981). As such, the right to international
travel is not a cognizable property interest. And to the ex-
tent that Mr. Davis relies on the Due Process Clause to as-
sert a right to travel, that allegation cannot invoke the
Claims Court’s jurisdiction. Collins v. United States, 67
F.3d 284, 288 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“This is so because the due
process clause does not obligate the government to pay
money damages.”) (citations omitted). Second, Mr. Davis
likewise cannot rely on withholding of the passport as a
cognizable property interest because a United States pass-
port “at all times remains the property of the United
States.” 22 C.F.R. § 51.7(a) (2026).
Considering that Mr. Davis failed to satisfy the thresh-
old issue on establishing a cognizable property interest, we
see no error in the Claims Court’s dismissal. See, e.g., Ac-
ceptance Ins. Cos. v. United States, 583 F.3d 849, 859 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) (affirming the Claims Court’s dismissal when
the plaintiff “did not have a cognizable property interest for
Fifth Amendment purposes”). Contrary to Mr. Davis’s as-
sertion, see Appellant Br. 1, in the absence of a cognizable
property interest, the Claims Court was not required to
consider the resulting economic harm from the denial of the
passport application or to undertake an analysis to deter-
mine whether a regulatory taking occurred. See Am. Pe-
lagic, 379 F.3d at 1372 (“If the claimant fails to
demonstrate the existence of a legally cognizable property
interest, the court[’]s task is at an end.”).
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Davis’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm the Claims Court’s dismissal.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 26-1414 Document: 29 Page: 4 Filed: 07/09/2026

-- 4 of 4 --