Ogunjobi v. United States, 16-1363

Background

Plaintiff Adesijuola Ogunjobi filed a 67‑page pro se complaint in the Court of Federal Claims and an IFP application alleging he was improperly denied the opportunity to purchase the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC business during bankruptcy proceedings.
He asserted constitutional violations (equal protection and deprivation of liberty), invoked the Fourteenth Amendment (but framed claims against federal actors/courts), and sought equitable/injunctive relief while disclaiming any monetary recovery.
The Court reviewed the complaint for subject‑matter jurisdiction sua sponte under RCFC 12(h)(3).
The Court explained the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction is limited primarily to money‑mandating federal causes of action or contract claims against the United States (Tucker Act jurisdiction).
The Court concluded the asserted constitutional provisions (Fourteenth/Fifth Amendment) and the alleged injuries did not create a money‑mandating right here, and the Court lacks authority to review decisions of other federal courts or the SEC.
The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction and granted plaintiff’s IFP application, closing the case.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over plaintiff's constitutional claims	Ogunjobi contends bankruptcy court refusal violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights (equal protection, liberty to pursue career)	United States argues the court lacks jurisdiction because claims do not seek money and are not based on a money‑mandating statute or contract with the U.S.	Dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; constitutional claims not money‑mandating here
Whether Fourteenth Amendment applies to federal actors	Ogunjobi invoked Fourteenth Amendment protections	United States notes Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to federal officials; Fifth Amendment would be applicable if at all	Court finds Fourteenth Amendment inapplicable to federal actors; Fifth Amendment claims still not money‑mandating
Whether due process/equal protection allegations against the U.S. are money‑mandating	Ogunjobi argues deprivation of liberty/equal protection entitles relief	United States argues Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection components are not money‑mandating under Tucker Act	Held not money‑mandating; Court of Federal Claims lacks Tucker Act jurisdiction over these constitutional claims
Whether the Court can review decisions of other federal courts/agency enforcement	Ogunjobi challenges bankruptcy/SEC‑related actions	United States asserts this court is not an appellate body over other federal courts or SEC enforcement	Held Court of Federal Claims cannot review or reverse other federal courts’ or SEC decisions; no jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir.) (standards for evaluating subject‑matter jurisdiction; allegations taken as true)
Total Medical Management, Inc. v. United States, 104 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir.) (elements required to establish contract‑based jurisdiction)
Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S.) (Tucker Act limits; jurisdiction only where statute confers substantive right to money damages)
Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United States, 372 F.2d 1002 (Ct. Cl.) (Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction over every constitutional claim)
S.F. Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 (U.S.) (Fourteenth Amendment generally inapplicable to federal actors)
LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir.) (equal protection component of Fifth Amendment is not money‑mandating)
Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114 (Fed. Cir.) (Due Process Clauses of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are not money‑mandating)
Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Fed. Cir.) (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to review district court decisions)
Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir.) (Court of Federal Claims is not an appellate tribunal for other courts)
Aerolineas Argentinas v. United States, 77 F.3d 1564 (Fed. Cir.) (Due Process Clause may provide jurisdiction only where claim seeks return of money paid under an illegal exaction)
Carruth v. United States, 627 F.2d 1068 (Ct. Cl.) (discussion of equal protection and Tucker Act limits)
Brown v. United States, 227 Ct. Cl. 786 (Ct. Cl.) (no jurisdiction over claims alleging deprivation of liberty in violation of Fifth Amendment)