Alphonso V. Frazier, Ii v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ALPHONSO V. FRAZIER, II,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1407
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:21-cv-02266-MMS, Senior Judge Margaret M.
Sweeney.
______________________
Decided: April 7, 2023
______________________
ALPHONSO V. F RAZIER , II, Omaha, NE, pro se.
D AVID MICHAEL K ERR, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. B OYNTON , T ARA K. HOGAN, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
P HYLLIS M. K NIGHT , Wichita, KS, as amicus curiae, pro
se.
Case: 22-1407 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 04/07/2023

-- 1 of 4 --

FRAZIER v. US 2
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
Alphonso V. Frazier II appeals from the dismissal of his
complaint by the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”).
Because the Claims Court properly determined that it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Frazier’s
claims, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Frazier previously filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska to remove a
state criminal case to federal court. The district court dis-
missed Mr. Frazier’s complaint, and the Eighth Circuit af-
firmed. S.A. 1.1 Mr. Frazier also filed a “Notice of
Constitutional Question” related to that complaint in the
district court. S.A. 2.
Mr. Frazier then filed the complaint at issue in this
case. At the Claims Court, Mr. Frazier alleged that the
clerk of the district court violated 28 U.S.C. §§ 951 and
2403, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Due
Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
when the clerk failed to “certify” the constitutional ques-
tion from his notice to the U.S. Attorney General. S.A. 2,
4. Mr. Frazier asserted that the Claims Court had juris-
diction over these claims under the Tucker Act. S.A. 3. The
Claims Court dismissed Mr. Frazier’s complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction since none of Mr. Frazier’s
claims arose from money-mandating provisions, which
Tucker Act jurisdiction requires. S.A. 3.
1 We cite to the supplemental appendix attached to
appellee’s brief as “S.A.”
Case: 22-1407 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 04/07/2023

-- 2 of 4 --

FRAZIER v. US 3
Mr. Frazier appeals, and we have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review the Claims Court’s dismissal for lack of sub-
ject matter jurisdiction without deference. Shearin v.
United States, 992 F.2d 1195, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For
the Claims Court to have subject matter jurisdiction under
the Tucker Act, Mr. Frazier needed to “demonstrate that
the source of substantive law he relies upon can fairly be
interpreted as mandating compensation by the federal gov-
ernment for the damages sustained.” United States v.
Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216–17 (1983) (cleaned up); see
28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
As the Claims Court correctly noted, none of the
sources of law that Mr. Frazier relies on for his claims are
money-mandating. Section 951 requires clerks of court to
take an oath; it does not mandate any payment by the fed-
eral government. Id. § 951. Likewise, section 2403 does
not contain a money-mandating provision; it allows federal
and state governments to intervene in actions affecting fed-
eral or state statutes. Id. § 2403. The Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure also do not require compensation by the
federal government. See Bobka v. United States,
133 Fed. Cl. 405, 411–12 (2017). And we have previously
held that the Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution
are not money-mandating. LeBlanc v. United States,
50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Since the sources of Mr. Frazier’s claims are not
money-mandating, the Claims Court properly concluded
that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over those claims
under the Tucker Act and dismissed the complaint.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Frazier’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we affirm.
Case: 22-1407 Document: 29 Page: 3 Filed: 04/07/2023

-- 3 of 4 --

FRAZIER v. US 4
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 22-1407 Document: 29 Page: 4 Filed: 04/07/2023

-- 4 of 4 --