Case: 22-1543 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 08/26/2022
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ABDUL MOHAMMED,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1543
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:21-cv-02262-EHM, Judge Edward H. Meyers.
______________________
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Having considered Abdul Mohammed’s complaint, the
judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims,
and Mr. Mohammed’s informal opening brief, the court
now dismisses this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Mr. Mohammed filed at least 14 cases against various
defendants that were dismissed in the United States Dis-
trict Court for the Northern District of Illinois. After being
declared a vexatious litigant and subject to filing injunc-
tions, Mr. Mohammed filed this suit in the Court of Federal
Claims alleging that the “illegal seizure of the Plaintiff’s
Case: 22-1543 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 08/26/2022
2 MOHAMMED v. US
causes of action . . . violated the takings clause of the 5th
Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Compl. at
1, 7, Mohammed v. United States, No. 1:21-cv-02262 (Fed.
Cl. Nov. 29, 2021). He also alleged “harrass[ment]” and re-
taliat[ion]” by federal judges and “Federal Agents” in con-
nection with his efforts to pursue his cases. Id. at 2–3. On
March 3, 2022, the Court of Federal Claims granted
Mr. Mohammed’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pau-
peris and granted the United States’ motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction.
Given that Mr. Mohammed has been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, it is appropriate to consider
whether his appeal complies with 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), which provides “the court shall dis-
miss . . . if the court determines that . . . the action or ap-
peal . . . is frivolous.” The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491,
limits jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims to claims
for money damages against the United States in cases “not
sounding in tort,” § 1491(a)(1), and based on sources of sub-
stantive law that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating
compensation by the Federal Government,” United States
v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Mohammed raises
no non-frivolous argument that the trial court erred in
finding his claims fall outside of the Tucker Act.
The Court of Federal Claims properly explained that
Mr. Mohammed’s harassment and retaliation claims,
which clearly sound in tort, are outside the Tucker Act
grant of jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); Rick’s Mush-
room Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). And it is also well-settled that the Court of Fed-
eral Claims “has no jurisdiction to review the merits of a
decision rendered by a federal district court,” Petro-Hunt,
L.L.C. v. United States, 862 F.3d 1370, 1385 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (citation omitted), or over claims, such as those
raised here, where the Court of Federal Claims “would
have to determine whether appellants suffered a
Case: 22-1543 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 08/26/2022
MOHAMMED v. US 3
categorical taking of their property at the hands of
the . . . courts,” Innovair Aviation Ltd. v. United States, 632
F.3d 1336, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). “Per-
mitting parties aggrieved by the decisions of Article III tri-
bunals to challenge the merits of those decisions in the
Court of Federal Claims would circumvent the statutorily
defined appellate process and severely undercut the or-
derly resolution of claims.” Shinnecock Indian Nation v.
United States, 782 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
We therefore conclude that Mr. Mohammed’s appeal
has no arguable basis in law and dismiss it as frivolous.
See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (holding
that “an appeal on a matter of law is frivolous where ‘[none]
of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits’” (citation
omitted, brackets in the original)).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
August 26, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court