Mutaz Al Shara v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MUTAZ AL SHARA,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1853
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-01848-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.
______________________
Decided: May 7, 2025
______________________
MUTAZ MAJEED AL SHARA, Dearborn, MI, pro se.
MATTHEW L EWIS , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. B OYNTON, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY , CORINNE
ANNE N IOSI.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and CHEN,
Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1853 Document: 77 Page: 1 Filed: 05/07/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

AL SHARA v. US 2
P ER CURIAM.
Mutaz Al Shara appeals from the final decision of the
United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”)
dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdic-
tion under RCFC 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted under RCFC 12(b)(6).
Al Shara v. United States, Case No. 23-1848C (Fed. Cl.
May 7, 2024). We have jurisdiction over Mr. Al Shara’s ap-
peal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). We review the Claims
Court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction without deference.
Diaz v. United States, 853 F.3d 1355, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
We also review the Claims Court’s dismissal for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted without def-
erence. B.H. Aircraft Co. Inc. v. United States, 89 F.4th
1360, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2024). For the reasons stated below,
we affirm the final decision of the Claims Court.
I
The Claims Court is a court of limited jurisdiction.
Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Under the Tucker Act, the Claims Court has jurisdiction
over claims against the United States if the claim is “[(1)]
founded either upon the Constitution, or [(2)] any Act of
Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or
[(3)] upon any express or implied contract with the United
States, or [(4)] for liquidated or unliquidated damages in
cases not sounding in tort,” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), or may
“render judgment upon any claim for damages by any per-
son unjustly convicted of an offense against the United
States and imprisoned,” id. at § 1495.
On October 18, 2023, Mr. Al Shara filed a complaint
with the Claims Court. Mr. Al Shara’s complaint contains
vague and widespread allegations of Constitutional viola-
tions and claims of a tortious nature committed by various
private and public institutions, including the United States
generally, and other foreign governments. The Claims
Court interpreted Mr. Al Shara’s pro se complaint to have
Case: 24-1853 Document: 77 Page: 2 Filed: 05/07/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

AL SHARA v. US 3
alleged claims against the United States regarding the
torts of conversion, defamation, threats, false imprison-
ment, invasion of privacy, interference with economic in-
terests or contractual rights, recklessness, and negligence.
The Claims Court also interpreted the complaint to contain
claims regarding criminal misconduct, writs for habeas cor-
pus, review of decisions from other state and federal courts,
and claims under the Geneva Convention or other treaties.
Further, the Claims Court identified Mr. Al Shara’s First,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional
claims, and Privacy Act claims against the United States
and determined those claims did not require the payment
of monetary damages. On January 31, 2024, the Claims
Court dismissed these claims for lack of subject matter ju-
risdiction under the Tucker Act.
For Mr. Al Shara’s remaining claims against the
United States—Fifth Amendment takings and unjust im-
prisonment—the Claims Court determined its exercise of
jurisdiction would be proper, but Mr. Al Shara had insuffi-
ciently plead the facts to support these claims. As such, the
Claims Court granted Mr. Al Shara leave to amend his
complaint with respect to these two claims. Mr. Al Shara
timely submitted an amended complaint on February 21,
2024. The Claims Court considered Mr. Al Shara’s submis-
sion but found an insufficient factual basis to support his
pleadings. The Claims Court dismissed Mr. Al Shara’s re-
maining claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
II
On appeal, Mr. Al Shara argues that the Claims Court
“failed to take into account [the] facts of [the] incidents”
plead. Appellant’s Br. at 1. The factual allegations pre-
sented in Mr. Al Shara’s briefing are substantially similar
to those contained within his complaint. The United States
counters that the Claims Court fully and fairly considered
all of Mr. Al Shara’s claims, and Mr. Al Shara’s arguments
Case: 24-1853 Document: 77 Page: 3 Filed: 05/07/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

AL SHARA v. US 4
“show[] no error in the trial court’s analysis.” Appellee’s
Br. at 6.
Though courts generally review a pro se litigant’s com-
plaint leniently, courts may not take a liberal view of juris-
dictional requirements. Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Lab.,
812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987). With this in mind,
we agree with the Claims Court’s assessment of
Mr. Al Shara’s complaint and its treatment of the claims
therein. The Claims Court lacks jurisdiction under the
Tucker Act over Mr. Al Shara’s tort claims against the
United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Nor does the
Tucker Act grant the Claims Court jurisdiction over
Mr. Al Shara’s claims of criminal misconduct or seeking re-
view of other state and federal court decisions. Id. The
Claims Court also correctly concluded that Mr. Al Shara’s
First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional
claims, and Privacy Act claims lacked the requisite mone-
tary component to establish jurisdiction under the Tucker
Act. Id. “The absence of a money-mandating source is fatal
to the [Claims Court’s] jurisdiction under the Tucker Act.”
Allen v. United States, 88 F.4th 983, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2023)
(cleaned up). Mr. Al Shara’s claims pertaining to viola-
tions of his Fifth Amendment rights, as well as his unjust
imprisonment claim, have not been sufficiently plead to es-
tablish claims upon which relief can be granted. See Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (“Factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level . . . .”). After careful review of the rec-
ord in this case, we conclude that the Claims Court
properly dismissed Mr. Al Shara’s claims for either lack of
subject matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1) or failure
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under
RCFC 12(b)(6).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the Claims
Court’s dismissal of Mr. Al Shara’s original and amended
Case: 24-1853 Document: 77 Page: 4 Filed: 05/07/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

AL SHARA v. US 5
complaints for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
All pending motions by Mr. Al Shara are hereby de-
nied.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1853 Document: 77 Page: 5 Filed: 05/07/2025

-- 5 of 5 --