Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05053/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05053-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abdoul K. Ouattara Hema
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ABDOUL K. OUATTARA HEMA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5053

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00055-FMA, Senior Judge Francis 

M. Allegra.

______________________ 

Decided: June 8, 2015

______________________ 

ABDOUL K. OUATTARA HEMA, Philadephia, PA, pro se.

ANNA BONDURANT ELEY, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR., MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, SCHALL, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-5053 Document: 16-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/08/2015
2 OUATTARA HEMA v. US

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION

Abdoul K. Ouattara Hema appeals the final decision 

of the United States Court of Federal Claims that dismissed his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Ouattara

Hema v. United States, No. 1:15-cv-00055-FMA (Fed. Cl. 

Jan. 28, 2015). We affirm. 

DISCUSSION

I.

Mr. Ouattara Hema filed suit in the Court of Federal 

Claims on January 21, 2015. In his complaint, he alleged 

that he had been unjustly arrested and harassed as part 

of an “unlawful ‘Self-deportation’ program against illegal 

immigrants.” Complaint at 1. Without seeking any 

specified amount of damages, Mr. Ouattara Hema requested that “a judgment be entered against the United 

States Government.” Id. at 2. On January 28, 2015, the 

Court of Federal Claims issued an Opinion and Order 

dismissing Mr. Ouattara Hema’s complaint for lack of 

jurisdiction. Ouattara Hema, slip op. at 2. In it, the court 

stated that, whether the complaint was viewed as asserting civil rights claims or tort claims, it presented matters 

beyond its jurisdiction. Id. at 1–2. This appeal followed. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

II.

The Court of Federal Claims derives its jurisdiction 

(which is the authority to hear a case) from the Tucker 

Act, which provides as follows:

The United States Court of Federal Claims shall 

have jurisdiction to render judgment upon 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 UnitCase: 15-5053 Document: 16-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/08/2015
OUATTARA HEMA v. US 3

ed States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort. 

28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (emphasis added).

The plain language of the Tucker Act excludes claims 

sounding in tort from the jurisdiction of the Court of 

Federal Claims. Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United 

States, 521 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008). At the same 

time, the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to 

entertain general civil rights claims that are not based 

upon an appropriate money-mandating provision. E.g., 

Sanders v. United States, 34 Fed. Cl. 75, 80 (1995), aff’d, 

104 F.3d 376 (Fed. Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 831 

(1997). We have reviewed Mr. Ouattara Hema’s complaint. In addition, we have considered all the arguments 

he makes on appeal. It is clear that all the claims he 

presents either sound in tort or amount to general allegations that his civil rights have been violated. In either 

case, they are outside the jurisdiction of the Court of 

Federal Claims.

For the foregoing reasons, the Opinion and Order of 

the Court of Federal Claims dismissing Mr. Ouattara 

Hema’s complaint is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

No Costs.

Case: 15-5053 Document: 16-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/08/2015