Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05029/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05029-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio Colbert
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ANTONIO COLBERT,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2014-5029

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:13-cv-00918-FMA, Judge Francis M. 

Allegra.

______________________ 

Decided: May 18, 2015

______________________ 

ANTONIO COLBERT, Washington, DC, pro se. 

GREGG PARIS YATES, 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.,

FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR.

______________________ 

Case: 14-5029 Document: 34-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/18/2015
2 COLBERT v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Before the court is an appeal from a judgment of the 

United States Court of Federal Claims (“CFC”) in Antonio 

Colbert v. United States, No. 13-918, and a series of 

motions filed by appellant Antonio Colbert in connection 

with that appeal. For the reasons explained below, the 

CFC’s judgment dismissing Colbert’s complaint for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2012) for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed, and Colbert’s 

various motions are denied. 

BACKGROUND

We turn first to the appeal before us. Before attempting to invoke the jurisdiction of the CFC, Colbert filed 

numerous lawsuits in the United States District Court for 

the District of Columbia. Between July 2010 and December 2011, Colbert filed 49 cases in the district court, most 

of which did not survive the court’s initial screening 

process. In response to Colbert’s frequent filings, the 

district court ruled that Colbert “abused the privilege of 

proceeding [in forma pauperis].” Colbert v. Cincinnati 

Police Dep’t, 867 F. Supp. 2d 34, 37 (D.D.C. 2011). The

court later enjoined Colbert from proceeding in forma 

pauperis in that court. Order, Colbert v. Cincinnati Police 

Dep’t, No. 11-cv-2250 (D.D.C. filed Feb. 21, 2012).

On July 23, 2013, Colbert filed an action in the district court which was dismissed sua sponte based on its 

earlier orders. See Order, Colbert v. Superior Court of the 

D.C., No. 13-cv-1137 (D.D.C. filed July 23, 2013). 

On November 21, 2013, Colbert filed a complaint in 

the Court of Federal Claims alleging that the “District 

Court of [the District of] Columbia” violated his rights 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985 by preventing him from 

“docket[ing] his claims.” Complaint, Colbert v. United 

States, No. 13-918 (Fed. Cl. filed Nov. 21, 2013).

Case: 14-5029 Document: 34-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/18/2015
COLBERT v. US 3

Six days later, the CFC dismissed Colbert’s complaint 

sua sponte, finding that it did not possess subject matter 

jurisdiction to entertain a claim for damages pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1985, a statute which relates to conspiracies 

to interfere with civil rights. Opinion, Colbert v. United 

States, No. 13-918 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 27, 2013). Specifically, 

the CFC relied upon longstanding case law for the proposition that federal court “jurisdiction for civil rights claims 

lies exclusively in the district courts.” Id. at 2.1 This 

appeal followed.

COLBERT’S APPEAL

This court reviews the CFC’s dismissal of a matter 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United 

States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) de novo. 

Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc. v. United States, 535 

F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Adams v. United States, 

391 F.3d 1212, 1218 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Leider v. 

United States, 301 F.3d 1290, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). 

Whether Tucker Act jurisdiction exists for an action filed 

in the CFC is a question of law that this court reviews 

without deference. Metz v. United States, 466 F.3d 991, 

996 (Fed. Cir. 2006). A pro se litigant’s complaint is held 

to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings filed by 

lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). The 

1 Section 1343(a) of Title 28 of the United States 

Code confers jurisdiction over § 1985 actions on the district courts. For decades, the CFC and its predecessors 

have consistently held that § 1985 and similar civil rights 

actions may not be brought under the Tucker Act, and 

this court has consistently affirmed those holdings. See, 

e.g., Gant v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 311, 316 (2004), 

aff’d, 417 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Anderson v. United 

States, 22 Cl. Ct. 178, 179 n.2 (1990), aff’d, 937 F.2d 623 

(Fed. Cir. 1991); Rogers v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 39, 50 

(1987), aff’d, 861 F.2d 729 (1998).

 

Case: 14-5029 Document: 34-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/18/2015
4 COLBERT v. US

lenient pleading standards afforded to a pro se plaintiff 

are not so lenient that they may forgive the failure to 

state a claim that falls within the court’s jurisdiction, 

however. Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. 

Cir. 1995). No plaintiff, pro se or otherwise, may be 

excused from the burden of meeting the court’s jurisdictional requirements. Kelley v. Sec’y. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 

812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

On appeal, Colbert makes several arguments, none of 

which address directly the CFC’s jurisdictional ruling. 

First, Colbert contends that the CFC failed to take into 

account that he filed his action as an “indigent”—i.e., in 

forma pauperis. Appellant Informal Br. at 1. The CFC

expressly acknowledged that fact in its order, however. It 

is, moreover, a fact which, as noted above, does not absolve Colbert from the obligation to assert a claim within 

the subject matter jurisdiction of the CFC. 

Second, Colbert asserts that there was “misconduct” 

by the “Clerk’s Office.” While it is unclear which clerk’s 

office—the clerk’s office in the CFC or the clerk’s office of 

the district court—to which he refers, neither allegation 

would alter our scope of review of the judgment before us. 

Colbert directs us to 18 U.S.C. § 1512 which makes it a 

crime to tamper with a “witness, victim, or an informant.” 

To the extent Colbert claims the clerk’s office at the CFC

engaged in criminal misconduct in their dealings with 

him, this court has no authority to engage in a criminal 

investigation of that office. To the extent Colbert claims 

he could assert criminal claims against the clerk’s office 

at the district court, the CFC was similarly without 

authority to conduct a criminal investigation or inquiry, 

and Colbert himself lacks the authority to institute one.

To the extent, moreover, that Colbert’s CFC complaint 

was intended to seek collateral review of the order of the 

district court dismissing his complaint there, the CFC

also does not possess jurisdiction to review such an order. 

Case: 14-5029 Document: 34-2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/18/2015
COLBERT v. US 5

Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

(granting summary affirmance of Court of Federal Claims 

order dismissing complaint that alleged that an order by 

the United States District Court for the Western District 

of Louisiana violated appellant’s Fifth Amendment 

rights). The CFC may not substantively review the 

wisdom of earlier district court orders.

Ultimately, Colbert offers nothing in his brief before 

this court which draws into question the propriety of the 

CFC’s judgment in this matter. Accordingly, we affirm 

the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims and dismiss 

Colbert’s appeal.

MOTIONS FILED IN THIS APPEAL

Colbert’s motions, at docket entries 26, 29, 30, and 31 

also are denied. While Colbert is not very clear about the 

grounds for his motions, it is clear that one thing he seeks 

is monetary relief from this court, the CFC, or both. He 

first contends he is entitled to “attorney/witness/litigation” fees. While Colbert is entitled to 

proceed pro se in this appeal, he is not entitled to have 

counsel appointed for him in this civil appeal. See Lariscey v. United States, 861 F.2d 1267, 1270–71 (Fed. Cir. 

1988) (“In civil proceedings . . . the right to counsel is 

highly circumscribed, and has been authorized in exceedingly restricted circumstances.”). If that is the relief 

Colbert seeks, accordingly, we decline to afford it to him. 

If Colbert is seeking litigation costs under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in 

connection with his action before the CFC, such costs are 

unavailable because he was not the “prevailing party” at 

the trial court level and has not prevailed on his appeal. 

The EAJA makes clear that prevailing party status is a 

prerequisite to recovery of attorneys' fees and costs. Id.

Colbert also apparently would like this court—via a 

writ of mandamus—to order the CFC to allow Colbert to 

amend his complaint in order to assert a claim for “crime 

Case: 14-5029 Document: 34-2 Page: 5 Filed: 05/18/2015
6 COLBERT v. US

victim’s compensation” in connection with an assault 

upon him. This court has no authority to do that however, regardless of the procedural vehicle invoked. “The 

scope of the issues presented to [the] court on appeal must 

be measured by the scope of the judgment appealed from, 

not the arguments advanced by the appellant.” Engel 

Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. 

Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Because Colbert did not 

include his claim for “crime victim’s compensation” in his 

complaint before the CFC, Colbert is not free to raise it 

for the first time on appeal. 

Indeed, it appears that Colbert may have already litigated his claim for “crime victim’s compensation,” as he 

filed a complaint in the CFC for “crime victim’s compensation” on January 24, 2014, after he filed the complaint in 

the action before us in this appeal. Complaint, Colbert v. 

United States, No. 14-0062 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 24, 2014). The 

complaint was dismissed pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3) for 

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judgment, Colbert v. 

United States, No. 14-0062 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 3, 2014). The 

CFC then denied a motion to reconsider that dismissal on 

May 22, 2014. Order, Colbert v. United States, No. 14-

0062 (Fed. Cl. May 22, 2014). Colbert did not appeal the 

judgment of the CFC in case no. 14-0062. Having failed 

to appeal the trial court’s judgment in that case, Colbert’s 

claim—if it is the same he asserted previously—is barred 

by principles of res judicata. See Federated Dep’t Stores v. 

Motie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981) (“A final judgment on the 

merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies 

from relitigating issues that were or could have been 

raised in that action,” even if “the judgment may have 

been wrong or rested on a legal principles subsequently 

overruled in another case.”). 

Colbert’s final request appears in a “brief assisting 

[his] memorandum,” in which Colbert seeks to add additional issues to this appeal. Colbert invokes the Fourteenth Amendment and indicates that he wishes to have 

Case: 14-5029 Document: 34-2 Page: 6 Filed: 05/18/2015
COLBERT v. US 7

certain police officers charged with police brutality. 

Appellant Mot. for Leave of the Court/“Brief Assisting My 

Memorandum” at 1. Colbert also alleges that the District 

of Columbia Superior Court was involved in a criminal 

conspiracy, and that the Harris Teeter supermarket chain 

and one or more McDonalds’ restaurants engaged in 

“criminal mischief.” Id. To the extent Colbert’s motion 

seeks to add issues to this appeal, it also must be denied 

because those issues fall outside of the scope of the judgment of the CFC appealed here. Engel Indus., 166 F.3d at 

1383.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the judgment of the Court of 

Federal Claims at issue in this appeal is affirmed, appellant’s motions filed in connection with this appeal are 

denied, and the appeal is dismissed.2

AFFIRMED

2 To the extent Colbert’s filings seek personal meetings with the Clerk of this court, those requests are 

denied as well. The Clerk lacks the authority to review or 

hear submissions of evidence or argument and is under no 

obligation to conduct in person meetings with litigants.

 

Case: 14-5029 Document: 34-2 Page: 7 Filed: 05/18/2015