Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05124/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05124-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mohammed Ahmed Hassan Omran
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MOHAMMED AHMED HASSAN OMRAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5124

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00186-PEC, Chief Judge Patricia E. 

Campbell-Smith.

______________________ 

Decided: December 11, 2015

______________________ 

MOHAMMED AHMED HASSAN OMRAN, Trout, LA, pro se.

ROBERT C. BIGLER, 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.,

DONALD E. KINNER. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-5124 Document: 17-2 Page: 1 Filed: 12/11/2015
 2 OMRAN v. US

Before REYNA, MAYER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Mohammed Ahmed Hassan Omran pro se appeals the 

United States Court of Federal Claims dismissal of his 

claims against the United States and denial of his motion 

for appointment of counsel. Because the Court of Federal 

Claims correctly held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Omran’s claims, we affirm. Additionally, 

we affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ decision not to 

appoint counsel for Mr. Omran. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Omran seeks compensation in the Court of Federal Claims for alleged violations of his rights during his 

arrest, trial, and conviction for immigration offenses. In 

2012 he was arrested and indicted for falsely claiming to 

be a United States citizen. Mr. Omran alleges that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers conducted an 

illegal search and seizure of his home and possessions in 

violation of the Fourth Amendment. During the ensuing 

proceedings, his counsel filed a motion to dismiss the case 

allegedly against Mr. Omran’s instructions in violation of 

his right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth 

Amendment. Mr. Omran did not prevail at the Immigration Court and was granted voluntary departure, but he

did not depart.

Mr. Omran was rearrested and indicted for failing to 

depart the United States. He was tried and, on February 

5, 2015, convicted in the United States District Court for 

the Western District of Louisiana. Mr. Omran alleges 

that he was denied the right to call witnesses in his own 

defense at trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment.

On February 26, 2015, Mr. Omran then filed a complaint with the Court of Federal Claims. He subsequently

filed three motions requesting (1) to proceed in forma 

pauperis, (2) a jury trial, and (3) appointment of counsel. 

Case: 15-5124 Document: 17-2 Page: 2 Filed: 12/11/2015
OMRAN v. US 3

On April 27 the United States moved to dismiss his 

claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal 

Claims. 

In the criminal proceedings in the Western District of 

Louisiana, Mr. Omran was sentenced to six months 

imprisonment on May 11, 2015. He has appealed that 

case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 

Circuit. See United States v. Mohamed Omran, No. 15-

30461 (5th Cir.). That appeal proceeds separately.

In the Court of Federal Claims, Chief Judge Campbell-Smith issued a thorough Opinion and Order on June 

30, 2015 granting the United States’ motion to dismiss all 

of Mr. Omran’s claims and denying his motion for appointment of counsel. Mr. Omran appealed those two 

decisions. The Opinion and Order also granted Mr. 

Omran’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis and denied 

his motion for a jury trial. These further decisions were 

not appealed.

DISCUSSION

This Court reviews de novo questions of statutory interpretation within its exclusive jurisdiction. Strickland 

v. United States, 199 F.3d 1310, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

This applies to both questions of subject matter jurisdiction and appointment of counsel in the Court of Federal 

Claims. Mudge v. United States, 308 F.3d 1220, 1224 

(Fed. Cir. 2002); see Lariscey v. United States, 861 F.2d 

1267, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Although we afford pro se

plaintiffs leniency for mere formalities, we cannot waive 

or overlook jurisdictional requirements. Kelley v. Sec’y, 

U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

On appeal Mr. Omran argues that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because he was denied his right 

to use compulsory process to obtain witnesses in his favor. 

He asserts that the Tucker Act provides jurisdiction for 

Case: 15-5124 Document: 17-2 Page: 3 Filed: 12/11/2015
 4 OMRAN v. US

this claim because it arises under the Constitution. 

Regarding the appointment of counsel, Mr. Omran argues 

that his incarceration, and resulting lack of access to legal 

books and the courts, create an exceptional circumstance 

necessitating the appointment of counsel.

The government’s response largely tracks the underlying Court of Federal Claims Opinion and Order. Both 

correctly explain that the Tucker Act, specifically 28 

U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), is merely a jurisdictional statute that 

does not itself create causes of action or the right to 

monetary relief. To invoke the Court of Federal Claims’ 

jurisdiction, a claim must be one that is created by a 

provision allowing recovery of money damages. United 

States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398, 96 S. Ct. 948, 953 

(1976). The Sixth Amendment does not itself create a 

right to recover money damages, and Mr. Omran has 

pointed to no money mandating provision as the basis for 

his complaint. Even if his claim is considered as a monetary claim based on unjust conviction, Mr. Omran has not 

pleaded or shown that “[h]is conviction has been reversed 

or set aside on the ground that he is not guilty of the 

offense of which he was convicted,” etc., as required by 28 

U.S.C. § 2513. 

While Mr. Omran does not address in his informal 

brief the other constitutional amendments and statutes 

listed in his complaint, we have considered these potential 

bases for jurisdiction as well. We agree with the Court of 

Federal Claims’ analysis regarding these additional 

grounds, and we do not repeat that analysis here. The 

Court of Federal Claims correctly found that it lacks 

jurisdiction over Mr. Omran’s claims.

Regarding appointment of counsel, the government 

again echoes the Court of Federal Claims Opinion and 

Order that appointment is unnecessary because there is

no jurisdiction. We agree. Here, as we have done before, 

we consider this question in light of the Supreme Court’s 

Case: 15-5124 Document: 17-2 Page: 4 Filed: 12/11/2015
OMRAN v. US 5

guidance. Lariscey, 861 F.2d at 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 

(citing Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 

18, 101 S. Ct. 2153 (1981)). To the extent Mr. Omran 

seeks to use a suit in the Court of Federal Claims to 

challenge his conviction, the Court of Federal Claims

lacks jurisdiction to hear it, as affirmed above. Even if 

there were other potential claims that Mr. Omran might 

present in the Court of Federal Claims, only a monetary 

claim against the government would be at issue. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1491; United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 

217, 103 S. Ct. 2961, 2968 (1983). With only monetary 

compensation potentially at stake, there is no private 

interest, government interest or risk of erroneous decision

here strong enough to overcome “the presumption that 

there is a right to appointed counsel only where the 

indigent, if he is unsuccessful, may lose his personal 

freedom.” Lassiter, 452 U.S. at 27. Given Mr. Omran’s 

lack of a right to appointment of counsel and the proper 

dismissal of the claims he did bring, we find no error in 

the Court of Federal Claims’ denial of Mr. Omran’s motion for appointment of counsel. 

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, we affirm the United States Court 

of Federal Claims’ dismissal of Mr. Omran’s claims and 

denial of his motion for appointment of counsel.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.

Case: 15-5124 Document: 17-2 Page: 5 Filed: 12/11/2015