DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION:  October 29, 2021
CBCA 7182
JOSEPH-ALLEN DAVIS,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
Respondent.
Joseph-allen Davis, pro se, Canton, OH.
Julie K. Cannatti, Jose Montalvo-Rodriguez, and Justin D. Haselden, Office of
General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC, counsel
for Respondent.
Before Board Judges RUSSELL, ZISCHKAU, and CHADWICK.
ZISCHKAU, Board Judge.
Appellant, Joseph-allen Davis, appeals an eviction ordered by the Canton Municipal
Court of Stark County, Ohio, claiming the eviction was invalid and that he is entitled to
compensation from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  Because
appellant has not alleged he had a contract with HUD, filed no claim under the Contract
Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109 (2018), and did not appeal from a final
decision of a HUD contracting officer, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.


CBCA 7182 2
Background
According to the record of court proceedings in the Canton Municipal Court, it
appears that appellant was a non-tenant, non-resident trespasser who had been staying at a
property in Stark County, Ohio, for some months.  The owner brought an action to evict
appellant.  A magistrate in the municipal court determined that appellant had no legal right
to occupy the premises.  A judge of the municipal court sustained the magistrate’s
determination.  After appellant was evicted, he challenged the decision before various state
and federal entities and tribunals, including the Ohio HUD Field Office Director and HUD
Inspector General, claiming his eviction was unlawful.  The municipal court denied
appellant’s requests to overturn his eviction.
On July 19, 2021, appellant filed an appeal of the municipal court decision with us. 
In the appeal, he states that (1) there was no contract between him and anyone else, (2) the
municipal court committed various errors, (3) HUD regulations were wrongly enforced
against him, (4) he was denied a hearing, (5) he was denied certain constitutional rights, (6)
the municipal court proceedings against him are void, and (7) he is entitled to compensation
for the damages he has sustained.  On August 25, 2021, we issued an order to show cause
why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the record did not
contain any underlying CDA claim submitted by appellant to a contracting officer of
respondent, nor any final decision by a contracting officer of respondent.  Appellant
responded to the order to show cause, arguing that the municipal court action was undertaken
on behalf of the Federal Government, that there is an implied contract between agents of
Stark County and HUD based on the county’s receipt of federal funding, and that his claim
arises under this implied contract.  Respondent contends that appellant has failed to meet the
jurisdictional requirements of the CDA because he is neither a contractor nor has he
submitted a written claim to a HUD contracting officer for a final decision.
Discussion
The CDA confers upon this Board jurisdiction to adjudicate claims arising from
express or implied contracts entered into by executive agencies for the procurement of
services and property, other than real property; the procurement of construction, alteration,
repair, or maintenance of real property; or the disposal of personal property.  41 U.S.C.
§ 7102(a).  To establish jurisdiction, appellant must, among other things, non-frivolously
allege the existence of a contract subject to the CDA, Vanguard Business Solutions v.
Department of State, CBCA 6951, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,838, and that appellant is a contractor as
defined in the CDA, Kristin Allred v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 4952, 15-1
BCA ¶ 36,108.  A contractor is a “party to a Federal Government contract other than the
Federal Government.”  41 U.S.C. § 7101(7).  The Board lacks jurisdiction if the facts as
alleged show appellant neither entered into nor was a party to a procurement contract with

CBCA 7182 3
HUD.  See BPI Management Inc. v. Department of Housing & Urban Development, CBCA
1894, 10-2 BCA ¶ 34,495.  CDA jurisdiction is limited to contractors and those in privity of
contract with the Federal Government.  See Lockheed Martin Aspen Med Services, Inc. v.
Department of Health & Human Services, CBCA 2054, 11-1 BCA ¶ 34,624 (2010).
Appellant has failed to allege that he is a contractor under a procurement contract with
HUD.  In addition, he has not shown that he filed a CDA claim with a HUD contracting
officer, and thus it follows that there is no indication in the record of a contracting officer
final decision or deemed denial relating to such a claim.  We need not address appellant’s
argument that there was an implied contract between Stark County officials and HUD as that
assertion is irrelevant.  See Bass Transportation Services, LLC v. Department of Veterans
Affairs, CBCA 4995, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,464 (our jurisdiction under the CDA exists “only after
a claim is presented to the contracting officer and is either decided or deemed denied, and
the contractor files a timely appeal”).
Decision
The appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
    Jonathan D. Zischkau    
JONATHAN D. ZISCHKAU
Board Judge
We concur:
   Beverly M. Russell          Kyle Chadwick               
BEVERLY M. RUSSELL KYLE CHADWICK
Board Judge Board Judge