O Diah v. United States
16-931
| Fed. Cl. | Nov 3, 2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff Aror Ark O'Diah filed a fourth complaint in the Court of Federal Claims repeating allegations from three prior complaints that were dismissed four months earlier.
- Allegations include assault, attempted murder/kidnapping, false arrest, malicious prosecution, exposure to radioactive chemicals, unlawful searches/seizures, fraud, civil-rights conspiracies, and breaches of fiduciary/contractual duties.
- Plaintiff names numerous federal actors and agencies, state/local officials, private parties, and former attorneys; adds alleged USPS failure to deliver an appeal notice.
- He asserts violations of multiple constitutional amendments and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and seeks $400 billion plus injunctive relief.
- The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the court granted IFP solely to decide the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court's jurisdiction over non‑United States defendants | O'Diah sues many state, local, and private actors as well as federal actors | Court of Federal Claims only has jurisdiction over claims against the United States | Dismissed: claims against any non‑United States parties are beyond this court's jurisdiction |
| Jurisdiction over criminal and tort claims | O'Diah alleges crimes, torts, and personal injuries (assault, attempted murder, hazardous exposure, etc.) | Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over criminal matters and tort claims | Dismissed: criminal and tort claims not cognizable in this court |
| Constitutional and civil‑rights claims (money‑mandating requirement) | O'Diah asserts violations of multiple constitutional amendments and §§ 1983/1985 | Only "money‑mandating" constitutional sources can support Tucker Act jurisdiction; §1983/§1985 claims are not cognizable here | Dismissed: constitutional claims and §1983/§1985 claims do not establish Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Alleged contract with the United States | O'Diah alleges breaches of implied/express contract with the government | Plaintiff failed to plead mutual intent, consideration, offer/acceptance, or government agent authority or terms | Dismissed without prejudice: no adequately pleaded contract to confer jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcum LLP v. United States, 753 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir.) (Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (United States must have waived sovereign immunity to be sued)
- Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act does not create substantive rights)
- Jan's Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Tucker Act requires an independent money‑mandating source)
- Sherwood, United States v., 312 U.S. 584 (Claims must be against the United States for this court to have jurisdiction)
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (Tort claims are outside Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (limitations on Tucker Act jurisdiction for constitutional claims)
- Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (courts may dismiss claims that are "absolutely devoid of merit")