3Jn tbc Wnitcb $>fates QJ:ourt of jf cbcral (!Claims 

No. 19-885C 

(Filed July 23, 2019) 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

************************ 

* 

NAJA TALIBAH ZAHIR, * 

* 

Plaintiff, * 

* 

V. * 

* 

THE UNITED STATES, * 

* 

Defendant. * 

* 

************************" 

ORDER 

On June 17, 2019, the complaint in this case was filed by prose plaintiff Naja 

Talibah Zahir. Although the complaint is difficult to decipher, Ms. Zahir appears to 

discuss at length alleged misconduct regarding trusteeship over her bankruptcy 

estate by the state of Maryland. Compl. at 1-2. Plaintiff's claim appears to allege 

that certain "corporate employees" have falsified evidence during bankruptcy 

proceedings to imply that she is deceased when she is not. Id. at 2. She bases this 

on an unusual theory regarding the proper use of her surname. Id. Plaintiff also 

appears to accuse, in a conclusory manner, the federal government of "Human Sex 

Trafficking injury, Inland Pirating .... [and] failure to provide full disclosure of 

securities and return of stolen equity/credit .... " Compl. at 4--5. 

As is frequently the case when people represent themselves, Ms. Zahir seems 

to misunderstand the jurisdiction given to our court by Congress. Under the Tucker 

Act, our court is primarily granted jurisdiction to hear cases brought against the 

U.S. government by parties alleging breach of a contract or the violation of a statute 

that requires the federal government to pay money in certain circumstances. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1491(a). Plaintiff's complaint does not properly allege the existence of a 

contract with the federal government, and also fails to allege that the federal 

government violated a money-mandating statute. See Compl.; cf. United States v. 

Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216-17 (1983); Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 

(Fed. Cir. 2013) ("To be cognizable under the Tucker Act, the claim must be for 

7018 0040 0001 1393 1341 
money damages against the United States, and the substantive law must be moneymandating."). 

The complaint is highly incoherent and difficult to understand, with Ms. 

Zahir referring to, for example, "U.S. shipNessel Citizen-Ships (Watery Maritime 

Ships that can evaporate into nothingness when exposed)." Compl. at 2. To the 

extent that Ms. Zahir complains about issues arising during the course of 

bankruptcy proceedings, those issues cannot be challenged in our court. See 

Allustiarte v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 713, 718 (2000) (holding that "[t]he Court of 

Federal Claims does not have the jurisdiction to review decisions issued during the 

normal course of bankruptcy proceedings."). If Ms. Zahir is unhappy with her 

bankruptcy proceedings, she "can appeal 'to the district court for the judicial district 

in which the bankruptcy judge is serving,' ... and then to the Court of Appeals for 

the ... Circuit." Celotex Corporation v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 313 (1995) (quoting 

28 U.S.C. § 158(a)). Additionally, if Ms. Zahir is alleging criminal wrongdoing on 

the part of employees of Maryland and the federal government, our court also does 

not possess jurisdiction over those claims. See Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 

378,379-80 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Stanwyck v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 308, 313-15 

(2016). Nor, for that matter, can we entertain claims of tortious conduct. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1491(a) (the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over claims 

"sounding in tort."). Plaintiff also seems to complain about misconduct by the state 

of Maryland as "trustee ex-officio" of her bankruptcy estate. Comp 1. at 2. Our court 

does not have jurisdiction to entertain cases against defendants other than the 

United States. See Shalhoub v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 584, 585 (2007) 

(explaining that "[t]he jurisdiction of this court extends only to suits against the 

United States."). 

When a plaintiff has failed to state a claim that falls within the subjectmatter jurisdiction of our court, a sua sponte dismissal is required. See Rule 

12(h)(3) of the Rules of the United States Court of Fede1·al Claims (RCFC) ("If the 

court at any time determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court 

must dismiss the action."); Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 

2004) (stating that "jurisdiction may be challenged at any time by ... the court sua 

sponte"). Since our court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Ms. Zahir's 

complaint it is therefore DISMISSED pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3). The Cle1·k is 

directed to close the case.t 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

:ftil~ 

Senior Judge 

t Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby GRANTED 

- 2 -