Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01959/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01959-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SERAJUL HAQUE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNKNOWN PARTY, NAMED AS ‘SECRETARY OF 

GOVERNMENTS,’ BANGLADESH, GOVERNMENT 

OF, UNITED STATES, NAMED AS UNITED STATES 

GOVERMENT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, NAMED 

AS CALIFORNIA GOVERMENT, SANTA CLARA 

COUNTY BOARD OF GOVERNMENT, FRY’S 

ELECTRONICS, INC., MMC TECHNOLOGY, ERNST

& YOUNG, LLP, KPMG LLP, STATE OF ARIZONA, 

SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF 

GOVERNMENT, SANTA CLARA SUPERIOR 

COURT, SANTA CLARA COUNTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY, MILPITAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT, SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, EQUAL 

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR 

EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING, CALIFORNIA 

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. 

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND 

IMMIGRATION SERVICES, CALIFORNIA BOARD 

OF ACCOUNTANCY, SANTA CLARA OFFICE OF 

EDUCATION, SANTA CLARA PUBLIC DEFENDER, 

Case: 15-1959 Document: 21-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/08/2016
2 HAQUE v. UNKNOWN PARTY

THOMAS ORVIS, ATTORNEY MOUNTAIN VIEW-CA 

(COURT APPOINTED), DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, SAN 

FRANCISCO-CALIFORNIA, ZAHIR ZEHIDI, 

ATTORNEY APPEARED IN USDOJ –EOIR 

IMMIGRATION COURT,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2015-1959, 2015-5142

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

District of Arizona in No. 2:11-cv-02130-PHX-MHB, 

Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns, and the United 

States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00565-

MCW, Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams.

______________________ 

Decided: January 8, 2016

______________________ 

SERAJUL HAQUE, Milpitas, CA, pro se. 

TANYA B. KOENIG, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee United States. Also represented 

by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., SCOTT 

D. AUSTIN.

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, DYK, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Appellant Serajul Haque appeals two actions to this 

court. One involves an order from the United States 

District Court for the District of Arizona (“District Court”) 

and the other concerns a final judgment from the United 

Case: 15-1959 Document: 21-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/08/2016
HAQUE v. UNKNOWN PARTY 3

States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”). As 

explained below, the court does not have subject matter 

jurisdiction over the appeal from the District Court and 

affirms the Claims Court’s decision to dismiss the other 

action. 

In Appeal No. 2015-1959, Mr. Haque challenges the 

District Court’s order denying his motion to transfer fiftythree closed cases in various courts, including the District 

Court, to the Claims Court. See generally Appellant’s 

Informal Br.1 The District Court denied the motion 

because the proceeding in which he filed the motion—

Haque v. United States, No. CV 11-2130-PHX-MHB (D. 

Ariz. Aug. 21, 2015)—“ha[d] been dismissed in its entirety.” Government’s App. 6. The Government contends 

that this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction 

over Mr. Haque’s claims. Government’s Br. 8.

When, as here, a party challenges this court’s subject 

matter jurisdiction “based on the sufficiency of the pleading’s allegations—that is, . . . a ‘facial’ attack on the 

pleadings—then those allegations are taken as true and 

construed in a light most favorable to the complainant.” 

Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573, 1583 

(Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). In the Amended 

Complaint that Mr. Haque filed in the District Court, he 

alleges statutory employment discrimination, violations of 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related 

causes of action. Government’s App. 26–37.

This court is a court of limited jurisdiction, which does 

not include appeals of district court orders involving the 

kind of allegations proffered in Mr. Haque’s Amended 

1 Mr. Haque filed identical briefs in Appeal No. 

2015-1959 and Appeal No. 2015-5142, as did the Government. Consequently, we need not identify whether a 

particular filing pertains to one or both appeals.

 

Case: 15-1959 Document: 21-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/08/2016
4 HAQUE v. UNKNOWN PARTY

Complaint. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1295 (2012) (providing

this court’s subject matter jurisdiction, which does not 

include the claims for statutory employment discrimination, violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

or related causes of action that Mr. Haque alleges). As a 

result, we do not have subject matter jurisdiction over the 

claims alleged in Appeal No. 2015-1959 and, thus, may 

not review whether the District Court erred in denying 

Mr. Haque’s motion to transfer.

In Appeal No. 2015-5142, Mr. Haque appeals the final 

judgment of the Claims Court dismissing his Complaint 

because he “fail[ed] to articulate a claim that is within 

th[at] [c]ourt’s jurisdiction.” Government’s App. 43. Mr. 

Haque’s Complaint states that he filed his action “pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employment discrimination,” id. at 139, that he seeks relief 

for failure to employ, termination of employment, failure 

to promote, and discrimination based on race or color, 

religion, sex, national origin, and age, id. at 139–41, and 

that the alleged discriminatory acts occurred between 

1994 and 2015, id. at 141. The Claims Court dismissed 

Mr. Haque’s action because it lacks jurisdiction to entertain “claims alleging civil rights violations.” Id. at 43 

(citation omitted). Even construing the claims in the light 

most favorable to Mr. Haque, see Cedars-Sinai, 11 F.3d at 

1583, we agree with the Claims Court that it lacked 

jurisdiction over the action, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295; Taylor v. 

United States, 310 F. App’x 390, 393 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 

(unpublished) (“Because Title VII vests jurisdiction over 

discrimination claims exclusively in the district court, the 

[Claims Court and, thus, this court] cannot exercise 

jurisdiction over those claims.”). Accordingly, we affirm 

the Claims Court’s decision to dismiss Mr. Haque’s action 

that resulted in Appeal No. 2015-5142.

DISMISSED-IN-PART AND AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Case: 15-1959 Document: 21-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/08/2016