is a taking, plaintiff has not alleged a property interest subject to a constitutional taking claim nor has plaintiff alleged any cognizable taking. Moreover, the Federal Circuit has explained that the Court of Federal Claims “does not have general equity jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief.” Shemonsky v. United States, 215 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir.1999) (upholding decision of the Court of Federal Claims that the courts jurisdiction did not extend to injunctive or declaratory relief); see also Bank of Guam v. United States, 578 F.3d 1318, 1331 (Fed.Cir.) reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 561 U.S. 1006, 130 S.Ct. 3468, 177 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2010); Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed.Cir.2003); Choate v. United States, 60 F.3d 840 (Fed.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). As stated by the Federal Circuit: The Court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the tucker act grants the united states court of federal claims jurisdiction to grant nonmonetary relief in connection with contractor claims including claims requesting an interpretation of contract terms (B) holding that the tucker act does not provide independent jurisdiction over claims for injunctive relief in contractual dispute cases (C) holding that the eleventh amendment does not prevent private individuals from bringing suit against state officials for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief for ongoing violations of federal law (D) holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over tax claims for declaratory or equitable relief (E) holding that the tucker act does not provide a means by which the court of federal claims may grant injunctive or declaratory relief where the suit does not involve a preaward protest or the application of section 7428 of the internal revenue code
(E)