# 3Jn tbc Wnitcb $>fates QJ:ourt ofjf 

# cbcral (!Claims No. 19-885C (Filed July 23, 2019) NOT FOR PUBLICATION 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 plaintiffNaja 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 ofMaryland. 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 ofher 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 ofstolen equity/credit
...." Compl. at 4--5. As is frequently the case when people represent themselves, Ms. Zahir seems to misunderstand thejurisdiction given to our court by Congress. Under the Tucker Act, our court is primarily grantedjurisdiction to hear cases brought against the U.S. government by parties alleging breach ofa 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 1341money damages against the United States, and the substantive law mustbe moneymandating."). The complaint is highly incoherent and difficult to understand, withMs. Zahirreferring 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 cannotbe 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 thejurisdiction to review decisions issued during the normal course ofbankruptcy proceedings."). IfMs. Zahir is unhappywith her bankruptcy proceedings, she "can appeal 'to the district court for thejudicial district in which the bankruptcyjudge is serving,'
... and then to the Court ofAppeals for the
... Circuit." 

### Celotex Corporation v. Edwards, 514 U.S
. 300, 313 (1995) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)). Additionally, ifMs. Zahir is alleging criminalwrongdoing on the part ofemployees ofMaryland and the federal government, our court also does not possessjurisdictionover 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 oftortious conduct. 28 U.S
.C. 

### § 1491(a) (the Court ofFederal Claims does not havejurisdictionover claims "soundingin tort."). Plaintiffalso seems to complain about misconduct by the state ofMaryland as "trustee ex-officio" ofher bankruptcy estate. Comp

### 1. at 2. Our court does not havejurisdictionto entertain cases against defendants other than the United States. 

### See Shalhoub v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 584, 585 (2007) (explaining that "[t]hejurisdiction ofthis court extends only to suits against the United States."). When a plaintiffhas failed to state a claim that falls within the subject

matterjurisdiction ofour court, a 

### sua sponte dismissal is required. 

### See Rule 12(h)(3) ofthe Rules ofthe United States Court ofFede1·al Claims (RCFC) ("Ifthe court at any time determines thatitlacks subject-matterjurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action
."); 

### Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed
. Cir. 2004) (stating that "jurisdiction maybe challenged at any time by
... the court 

### sua sponte"). Since our court lacks subject-matterjurisdiction 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 

### informapauperis is hereby 

### GRANTED

- 2 -