Abdul Mohammed v. United States

CORRECTED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2022
N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ABDUL MOHAMMED,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-2052
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-00673-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Abdul Mohammed moves for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP). Having considered the complaint, the judg-
ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims, and Mr.
Mohammed’s corrected opening brief, we summarily af-
firm.
Case: 22-2052 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 09/15/2022

-- 1 of 3 --

MOHAMMED v. US 2
Mr. Mohammed filed a one-page complaint at the
Court of Federal Claims seeking $1,000,000 for the “illegal
seizure” of his “tort complaint pending with the General
Counsel of the Administrative Office [“AO”] of the United
States Courts” by the “refus[al] to investigate Plaintiff’s
torts complaint [and] to give any update.” Compl. at 1. The
Court of Federal Claims granted Mr. Mohammed IFP sta-
tus and sua sponte dismissed for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Mr. Mohammed ap-
peals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a court of the United
States must dismiss an IFP action if the court determines
that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. Summary affirmance is appropriate when the de-
cision below “is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no
substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal
exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir.
1994). Here, the Court of Federal Claims was clearly cor-
rect that Mr. Mohammed’s complaint, even liberally con-
strued, failed to identify any source of law that obligated
the AO to investigate his tort allegations, let alone any
statute, regulation, or contract that mandated compensa-
tion by the United States for failure to comply with the al-
leged obligation. See United States v. Navajo Nation, 556
U.S. 287, 290 (2009).
Mr. Mohammed characterizes the AO’s refusal to take
action on his submission as a taking of his right to file a
claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). See Ap-
pellant’s Br. at 4–5; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). But he
makes no cogent, non-frivolous contention that the wrongs
alleged afford Mr. Mohammed rights that can be vindi-
cated at the Court of Federal Claims. In fact, Mr. Moham-
med asserts that he can still bring an action under the
FTCA if an “agency” “failed to issue a final decision within
six months of the date that the claim was presented.” Ap-
pellant’s Br. at 5.
Case: 22-2052 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 09/15/2022

-- 2 of 3 --

MOHAMMED v. US 3
Additionally, Mr. Mohammed’s contention that the AO
engaged in wrongful conduct in discharging official duties
by failing to investigate and inform Mr. Mohammed about
his claims clearly sounds in tort, such that the Court of
Federal Claims could not grant him relief. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1) (no jurisdiction for claims arising in tort).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion is denied as moot. No fee payment is
required for this appeal.
(2) Mr. Mohammed’s corrected opening brief, ECF No.
10, is accepted for filing.
(3) The judgment of the United States Court of Federal
Claims is affirmed.
(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.
September 15, 2022
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 22-2052 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 09/15/2022

-- 3 of 3 --