Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05063/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05063-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 516
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ROBERT AJAMIAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5063

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00041-PEC, Chief Judge Patricia E. 

Campbell-Smith.

______________________ 

Decided: July 14, 2015

______________________ 

ROBERT AJAMIAN, Latham, NY, pro se.

MARK E. PORADA, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 

for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C.

MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., DONALD E. KINNER. 

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 15-5063 Document: 22-2 Page: 1 Filed: 07/14/2015
2 AJAMIAN v. US

PER CURIAM.

Robert Ajamian appeals from the final order of the 

United States Court of Federal Claims (“Court of Federal 

Claims”) dismissing his suit for lack of jurisdiction. 

Ajamian v. United States, No. 15-41C, 2015 WL 739955

(Fed. Cl. Feb. 20, 2015) (“Final Order”). Because we find

that the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed 

Ajamian’s claims for lack of jurisdiction, we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

The basis of Ajamian’s lawsuit is his assertion that 

the lawyers for his father’s estate failed to pursue a 

medical malpractice claim on his father’s behalf against a 

doctor in private practice in the state of New York. Ajamian has already litigated these issues in New York state 

and federal courts. See Ajamian v. New York, No. 13-cv1316, 2014 WL 3928448 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2014). After 

both courts dismissed his claims and those dismissals 

were affirmed on appeal, Ajamian filed the present suit in 

the Court of Federal Claims seeking a writ of prohibition 

and $42 million in damages for alleged violations of both 

his constitutional rights and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 by the New 

York state and federal courts. 

The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Ajamian’s 

suit, explaining that it did not have jurisdiction over his 

claims. Because it did not possess appellate jurisdiction 

over the New York state and federal courts that denied 

Ajamian’s initial claims, the Court of Federal Claims 

explained that it did not have jurisdiction to issue a writ 

of prohibition against those courts. Final Order, 2015 WL 

739955, at *3. Regarding his claims for monetary damages, the Court of Federal Claims explained that it only had 

jurisdiction over claims against the United States, not 

those against government officials or states. To the 

extent Ajamian raised a claim arising under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 against the United States, moreover, the Court of 

Federal Claims reasoned that United States district 

Case: 15-5063 Document: 22-2 Page: 2 Filed: 07/14/2015
AJAMIAN v. US 3

courts had exclusive jurisdiction over his claim. Id. at *3–

4. Finally, the Court of Federal Claims found that transfer of the case to another court would not be appropriate 

because a United States district court already had ruled 

on his claims. Id. at *5.

Ajamian filed a motion for reconsideration, but the 

court denied his motion, explaining that his attempts to 

reframe his claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 were unsuccessful because the Court of Federal Claims still did not 

have jurisdiction. Ajamian v. United States, No. 15-41C, 

slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 10, 2015). Ajamian timely 

appealed to this court.

II. DISCUSSION

“Whether the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed [a plaintiff’s] amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review 

de novo.” Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 

(Fed. Cir. 2004). In determining whether the Court of 

Federal Claims possessed subject matter jurisdiction, “the 

allegations stated are taken as true and jurisdiction is 

decided on the face of the pleadings.” Shearin v. United 

States, 992 F.2d 1195, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

On appeal, Ajamian argues that the Court of Federal 

Claims “[f]ailed to take into account [his] constitutional 

rights” and violated his right to due process. Appellant’s 

Br. 1. He contends that the Court of Federal Claims 

misapplied the Constitution, 28 U.S. Code § 1331, and 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau 

of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Appellant’s Br. 1. 

Ajamian also supplemented his appeal with a separate 

filing, in which he argued that his case should not be 

dismissed without a trial. Appellant’s April 17 Filing at 

1–2. 

We understand that Ajamian feels that his family has 

been wronged and wants his claims to be heard. The 

Case: 15-5063 Document: 22-2 Page: 3 Filed: 07/14/2015
4 AJAMIAN v. US

Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed his case for 

lack of jurisdiction, however. The jurisdiction of the 

Court of Federal Claims is limited by the Tucker Act to 

“any claim against the United States founded either upon 

the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation 

of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or 

unliquidated damages in cases sounding in tort.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). To the extent Ajamian’s claims seek 

relief against the state or federal judges individually, the 

state of New York, or the private attorneys who handled 

his father’s estate, the Court of Federal Claims did not 

have jurisdiction to address his claims. “The Tucker Act 

grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over suits 

against the United States, not against individual federal 

officials.” Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)); id. (“Bivens actions 

. . . lie outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal 

Claims.”). 

Furthermore, to the extent that Ajamian asserts 

claims against the United States, rather than individual 

federal or state officials, the Court of Federal Claims still 

lacked jurisdiction over those claims. Ajamian references

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in his pleadings as 

the possible bases for his claims, but United States district courts have original jurisdiction over claims arising 

under those statutes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a) (“The 

district court shall have original jurisdiction of any civil 

action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: 

. . . (4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other 

relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights.” (emphasis added)); id. § 1331 (“The 

district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil 

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of 

the United States.” (emphasis added)). Because “[t]he 

Court of Federal Claims is not a district court of the 

United States,” Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378, 

Case: 15-5063 Document: 22-2 Page: 4 Filed: 07/14/2015
AJAMIAN v. US 5

1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002), it does not have jurisdiction to 

consider Ajamian’s claims under those statutes. Ajamian 

also references alleged violations of the Constitution and 

“due process of law,” but that is insufficient to establish 

jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims because those 

claims do not mandate the payment of money. Smith v. 

United States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The 

law is well settled that the Due Process clauses of both 

the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not mandate 

the payment of money and thus do not provide a cause of 

action under the Tucker Act.”).

We have considered Ajamian’s remaining arguments—including those in his post-briefing filings—and 

find them unpersuasive on the issue of the Court of Federal Claims’s jurisdiction.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Court of Federal Claims’s dismissal of Ajamian’s claims for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-5063 Document: 22-2 Page: 5 Filed: 07/14/2015