# ORIGINAI lln,bt @nfte! btuteg 

# [.ourt of

# /e[rrul @tufmg No. l5-186C 

## (Filed: June

### 30,2015)


### NOT FOR 

### PUBLICATION 

# FILED

JUN

### 30 2015



### 'Efe33'u8l*X5t MOHAMMED AHMED HASSAN OMRAN.



### Plaintifl Pro Se 

### Complaint; Rule 

### l2(bXl) Motion to Dismiss; Transfer; 28 

### U.S.C. ri 1631


### THE 

### UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

Mohammed 

### Ahmed Hassan Ornran, Natchitoches, La., 

### pro se.
Robert C. 

### Bigler, 

### with whom were 

### Benjamin C. 

### Mizer, Principal DeputyAssistant 

### Attorney General, Robert E. Kirschman. Jr., 

### Director, and Donald E. 

### Kinner, Assistant 

### Director, Commercial 

### Litigation Branch, 

### Civil Division, United States Department 

## of Justice, Washington, 

### D.C., for def'endant.


### OPINION and

### ORDER
CAMPBELL-SMITH, Chief Judge

Pro se

### plaintiff, Mohamrned 

### Ahmed Hassan 

### Abdallah Omran, 

### filed a

### complaint in this court on February 

### 26,2015, raising claims under the Federal

### Tort Claims 

### Act, the 

### Civil Rights

### Act, andthe 

### United States 

### Constitution relating to his arrest,

### trial, and 

### conviction for immigration 

### offenses. Compl. at 

### l-2, Feb. 

### 26,2015, ECF 

### No. 1.
On

### August 30,2012, 

### Mr. Omranwas anested in 

### New Hampshire 

### for falsely 

### claiming U.S. 

### citizenship in

### violation 

### of 18 U.S.C. $

## 911. See 

### id. at 

## 1. On September 

### 5,2012, 

### Mr. Omran was indicted on charges that he 

### "falsely and

### willfully represented 

### himselfto be a

### citizen of the 

### United States on an Employment 

### Eligibility Verification Form" in

### violation 

### of l8 U.S.C. $

### 9l

# l. Indictment, United States v. 

### Abdallah, 

### No. 12- 00117 

### (D.N.FI. Sept. 5,

### 2012),ECF 

### No. 

## 1. Mr. Omran statesthat on September 24, 

### 2012,Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

### officers investigating 

### this offenseconducted an 

### illegal search and seizure at his home in

### violation of the Fourth



### Amendment. Compl. at

# l Plaintiff also states that the lawyer appointed 

### by the court

### to represent 

### him violated his 

### right to 

### effective assistance 

### ofcounsel by

### filing, over his objections, a 

### motionto dismiss his 

### case. ld. at2.

On February 

### 27,2014, Mr. Omran was indicted on 

### two counts 

### offailing to depart the 

### United States after being issued an order 

### of removal, in

### violation of 8 

### U.S.C. $ 

### 1253(a)(1)(C). Indictment, United States 

### v. Omran, 

### No. 14-00035 

### (W.D. La. 

### Feb.27, 2014), ECF 

### No. 

## 1. He was 

### tried in the 

### United States 

### District Court for the Western 

### District of 

### Louisiana. Mr. Omran alleges that hewas 

### prohibited from calling witnesses
on his own behalf 

### during his

### trial, in

### violation of 

### his Sixth Amendment 

### rights. Pl. Resp. 

### 1-2,May 11,2015, ECF 

### No.

# 8.' On 

### May 12,2015, 

### Mr. Omran wasfound 

### guilty on both counts and was sentenced to imprisonment 

### for six 

### months. Judgment, 

### United States 

### v. Omran, 

### No. 14-00035 

### (W.D. La. 

### May 12,2015), ECF 

### No. 

### 116. On 

### May 18, 2015, 

### Mr. Omran

### filed a notice 

### of

### appeal. Plaintiff claims that throughout these events, the govemment 

### violated his 

### rights relatedto "unreasonable search and seizure, due process, effective assistance

### of counsel, equal protection 

### of the 

### law, and 

### right to 

### property." Compl. at 2.
On

### April 27,2015, defendant

### filed a motion 

### to dismiss 

### plaintiffls claims 

### for lack 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction, pursuant to 

### Rule 

### l2(bXl) of the Rules 

### of the U.S. Court

## of Federal Claims 

### (RCFC). ECF 

### No.

## 7. Also before the court are 

### plaintiff s

### motion

### for leaveto proceed 

### in forma pauperis, 

### motion for

### trial by

### jury, and 

### motion for the appointment 

### ofcounsel. ECF Nos. 

### 5,6, 12.
The court 

### GRANTS 

### plaintiff s

### motion to proceed 

### in forma pauperis

### for the 

### limited purpose 

### of addressing 

### this court's

### jurisdiction. For the reasons explained below, the court 

### finds 

### it lacks

### jurisdiction over 

### plaintiffs complaint. The court also

### finds 

### it is not in the interest

### ofjustice totransfer 

### plaintiffs complaintto afederal 

### district court 

### in which the 

### complaint could have been

### brought. Accordingly, defendant's 

### motion to dismiss is

### GRANTED and the case is 

### DISMISSED for lack 

### ofjurisdiction pursuant 

### to RCFC 

## l2(bXl). Plaintiff s

### motion for

### trial by

### jury and 

### motion for the appointment

## of counsel are 

### DENIED.



# I Plaintiffdid not allege thcse facts in his 

### complaint but raisedthem

### for the

### first time in his response

### to defendant's 

### motion to 

### dismiss. The court acknowledges that 

### this claim was not 

### properly included 

### in a

### pleading. See 

### RCFC

## 7(a). However, because 

### plaintiff is proceeding 

### pro se and his pleadings are to be construed 

### liberally, the court has chosen to address 

### this claim.

# I. Legal Standards



# A. Subject-MatterJurisdiction

In evaluating subject-matter

### jurisdiction, "the allegations stated in the 

### complaint
aretaken astrue and

### jurisdiction is decided on the face 

### ofthe 

### pleadings." Folden v. 

### United States, 379 F

### .3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2004) 

### (internal quotation marks omitted). Complaints 

### filed by 

### pro se

### plaintiffs are held to "less stringent standards than

### formal pleadings drafted 

### by 

### lawyers." Hainesv. Kerner, 404 

### U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). Nevertheless, 

### pro se

### plaintiffs must meet

### jurisdictional requirements. Zulueta 

### v. United States, 553 F.

### App'x 983, 985 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2014); 

### Kelley 

### v. Sec'y. U.S. 

### Dep't of Labor, 812 

### F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1987).

The Tucker 

### Act grants this court

### jurisdiction over 

### "any claim against the 

### United States founded either uponthe 

### Constitution, or any

### Act ofCongress or any regulation 

## of
an executive department, or upon any express or 

### implied contract 

### with the 

### United States, or

### for liquidated or 

### unliquidated damages 

### in cases not sounding 

### in

## tort." 28 U.S.C. $ 

### la91(a)(l) 

### (2012). The Tucker 

### Act is

### jurisdictional and does not create, 

### by itself, any substantive 

### right to recovery against the 

### United 

### States. United States v. 

### Mitchell,463 U.S. 206, 2 16 

### (1983); United States 

### v. Testan, 424 

### U.S. 392, 398 

### (1976). Thus, a 

### plaintiff in this court must rest his or her 

### claim on a money-mandating 

### provision 

### of law that confers asubstantive 

### right enforceable against the federal govemment 

### for money 

### damages. See Testan, 424 U.S. at 398. 

# B. Transfer Under 28 

### U.S.C. S 1631
Should this 

### court determinesthat 

### it lacks 

### jurisdiction over a

### plaintiff sclaims, 

### it must transfer the case

### to acourt where the action could have been 

### brought 

### if thetransfer 

### "is in the interest

## ofjustice." 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1631 (2012); see also Tex. Peanut Farmers v. 

### United States, 409 

### F.3d 1370, 137 5 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2005) (stating that the 

### trial court may order transfer sua

### sponte). According to the Federal 

### Circuit, 

### "[t]he phrase 

## 'if it is in the interest 

### ofjustice' relates to claims 

### which are 

### nonfrivolous and as such should be decided
on the 

### merits." Gallowa)r Farms. 

### Inc.v. United States,834 F.2d 

### 998, 1000 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1987) 

### (citing Zinger Constr. Co.v. 

### United States ,7 53 F

### .2d 1053, 105 5 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1985)). 

### Frivolous claims 

### include "those whose 

### disposition is

### obvious." Id.


### In deciding whether transfer is in the interest

### ofjustice, this court considers whether any 

### of 

### plaintiff sclaims 

### would be decided on the merits 

### in federal 

### district court. 

# II. Discussion 

# A. The Court Lacks 

### Jurisdiction Over 

### Plaintiff sClarms

3Forthe reasons that 

### follow, the court finds that 

### it lacks 

### jurisdiction over 

### plaintiff s

numerous 

### claims. First, 

### Mr. Omran alleges that U.S. 

### Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

### officers 

### unlawfully searched his home and seized his possessions, 

### in violation of the Fourth 

### Amendment. "[F]or this Court to have

### jurisdiction over 

### constitutional

. . .claims, the claims must be money 

### mandating." Tasby v. 

### United States, 91 Fed. 

### Cl. 344,346 (2010) 

### (citing 

### Mitchell,463 U.S.

## at216,2l8). The Fourth Amendment, however, does not mandate the payment 

### of 

### money. Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 ,

### 62314 (Fed. 

### Cir. I997) ("Because monetary damages are not available 

### for a 

### Fourth Amendment 

### violation, the Court 

### of Federal Claims does not have 

### jurisdiction over such a

### violation."). Therefore, this court cannot hear 

### plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claims.


### Plaintiff sother 

### constitutional claims 

### similarly fall outside

### of this 

### court's 

### jurisdiction. Fifth Amendment due process claims, and FourteenthAmendment due process and equal 

### protection claims do not mandate the payment 

### of money damages and thus cannot 

### fumish a basis for

### jurisdiction. Smith 

### v. United States, 709 

### F.3d I 

### I14, 11

### l6 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2013); 

### LeBlanc

### v. United States, 50 

### F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### 1995). Nor is 

### plaintiff sSixth 

### Amendment ineffective assistance

### of counsel 

### claim money mandating; thus, 

### it cannot be raised 

### in this 

### court. Turpin v. 

### United States, I

### l9 Fed. 

### Cl.704,'707 (2015); Smith v. 

### United States, 51 Fed. 

### Cl. 36, 38 (2001), 

### affd, 36 F.

### App'x 444 (Fed. 

### Cir.2002).


### Mr. Omran also invokes the

### Civil Rights

### Act and assertsthat he is 

### bringing a 

### "civil rights 

### action." However, 

### this court lacks 

### jurisdiction over federal 

### civil rights 

### claims. SeeMcCauleyv.UnitedStates,38Fed. 

### Cl.250,265(199'7),afld, l52 F.3d948 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### 1998)C'Itiswell settled that this court does not have

### jurisdiction over

### civil rights claims brought under

### Title

### VII of the 

### Civil Rights

### Act 

### of 1964 or 42 U.S.C. $ 

### 1983.').


### Plaintiff further alleges that hewas 

### wrongfully 

### convicted. While under certain circumstances this 

### court has

### jurisdiction to hear a

### claim for money damages 

### for unjust 

### conviction, 28 

### U.S.C.

### $ 1495, such

### jurisdiction is dependent onthe challenged 

### conviction first having been reversed, set aside, or overturned after a new

### trial or hearing, or the prisoner having received a pardon, 28 U.S.C. $ 25 13(a)( 1); Beadles 

### v. United States, 1 15 

### Fed.CI.242,245(2014);Sharoev.UnitedStates, 

### 112Fed.CI.468,417(2013). Mr. Omran does not allege that his 

### conviction has been reversed, set aside, or overturned and provides no 

### indication that he has been granted a

### pardon. Therefore, 

### Mr. Omran fails 

### to meetthe bar set 

### by 28 

### U.S.C. $$ 1495 and2513, and this court does not have

### jurisdiction to consider his

### wrongful conviction claim.

### Plaintiff also invokes the Federal 

### Tort Claims 

### Act (FTCA) asgrounds 

### for his

complaint, although the contours 

### of his 

### tort claim are

### unclear. The 

### United States 

### district courts have exclusive

### jurisdiction over 

### FTCA cases. Bowling v. 

### United States, 93 Fed. 

### Cl. 551, 557 

### (2010); see 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 

### 1346(bXl). Additionally, the Tucker 

### Act makes clear that this court does not have

### jurisdiction over 

### tort claims against the govemment. 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1a9l(a)(1) (stating that this court 

### "shall have

### jurisdiction to 

### renderjudgment upon any 

### claim against the 

### United States

. . . in cases not sounding 

### in

### tort" (emphasis added)); see also Keene Corp. 

### v. United States, 508 U.S. 

### 200,214 (1993); Shearin v. 

### United States, 

### 992F.2d 

### 1195,ll97 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### 1993). Therefore, to the extent

### plaintiff raises any

### tort claims, the court lacks

### jurisdiction.


### Plaintiff s

### motionsfor

### trial by

### jury and the appointment 

### of counsel are both 

### denied. Because the 

### court lacks 

### jurisdiction over 

### plaintiffs claims, there is no need 

### for counsel or a

### trial in 

### this 

### case. Moreover, "there is no 

### right to a

### jury trial in this court and this court does 

### not conduct 

### trials by

## jury." Ramos 

### v. United States, 112 Fed. 

### Cl. 79, 83 n.3 (2013) 

### (citing Webster v. 

### United States,74 Fed. 

### Cl. 439,444 (2006)). 

# B. Transfer Is 

### Not in the Interest 

### of Justice


### Mr. Omran raises claims relating to

### two 

### arrests: one in 

### New Hampshire and one in 

### Louisiana. The court

### will first address 

### plaintiff sclaims arising out of the 

### New Hampshire 

### arrest. 

### If Mr. Omran 

### filed a

### claim 

### in federal court in 

### New Hampshire, 

### it would be bound by the precedent of the 

### First Circuit Court 

### ofAppeals.

The 

### First 

### circuit has held that res

### judicata, otherwise 

### known as

### claim preclusion, "applies 

### if 

## (l) the 

### earlier suit resulted in afinal 

### judgment on the merits, 

### (2) the causes

## of action asserted in the earlier and later suits are 

### sufficiently identical or related, and (3) the parties in the 

### two suits are

### sufficiently identical or closely 

### related." Airframe Sys.. Inc. v. 

### Rafiheon Co., 601 F.3d 

### 9, 14 (1st 

### Cir. 2010).



### on November 10,2014, 

### Mr. omran filed a

### complaint in the 

### united states 

### District court for the 

### District of New Hampshire alleging many 

### of the same claims he presents 

### in this 

### court. Compl., Omran 

### v. United States, 

### No. 14-505 

### (D.N.H. 

### Nov. 10,

## 2014).2 In 

# 2 Mr. Omran also 

### filed asubstantially 

### similar suit in the 

### United States 

### District Court for the 

### District of Massachusetts on 

### October 

### 14,2014. See 

### Compl., Omran v. 

### United States, 

### No. 14-13881 

### (D. Mass. 

### Oct. 14,2014), ECF 

### No. 

## 1. A final decision on the merits hasyetto be issued in that case, so 

### it does not have a res

### judicata effect on this 

### case. See Omran 

### v. United States, 2015

### WL 237631.4, 

### No. 14-13881 

### (D. Mass. 

### May 17, 

### 2015). However, the fact that 

### Mr. Omran has had 

### multiple suits 

### in federal 

### district court on 

### similar claims strengthens the 

### court's conclusion that 

### transferring his 

### complaint is 

### not in the interest

# of.iustice.

5that action, 

### plaintiff allegedthe same facts about thewarrantless search and seizure and

his

### attomey's failure to heed hiswishes regarding the 

### motion to dismiss the 

### criminal charges against 

## him. Id. at

## 8-9. Plaintiff asserted claims under the Fourth Amendment, the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses 

### of the 

### Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Sixth Amendment, the 

### Civil Rights 

### Act, and the 

### FTCA, among

### others. Id. at 5,

## l0- 11. On 

### February 10, 2015,the 

### district court found that 

### all of 

### plaintiffs claims were either 

### frivolous orfailed to state a

### claim and therefore, dismissed

### all claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. gg 

### 1915(e)(2)(B) and 

### 1915A(b). Omranv. 

### United States, 2015

### WL 570723, 

### at*1,*9, No. l4-505 (D.N.H. Feb. 10,2015).


### A dismissal 

### for failure to state a

### claim is afinal 

### judgment onthe 

### merits. See 

### Airframe Sys., 601 F.3d 

### at 14;

### AVX Corp. 

### v. Cabot Corp. 

### ,424 F.3d28, 30 

### (lst Cir. 

### 2005)- Additionally, the causes

### of action asserted 

### in 

### Mr. omran's November 10,2014, complaint were

### sufficiently identical to the claims he raises in this court relatine to his 

### New Hampshire 

### arrest. Finally, the parties in the

### two suits were essentially thJ same. In the 

### New Hampshire suit, 

### Mr. omran sued the 

### united States as

### well as numerous federal and state 

### offices and

### employees. Here, 

### Mr. omran sues

### only the 

### united states. Since 

### Mr. omran's claims against the 

### united States have already 

### beln dismissed in the 

### District of 

### New Hampshire, res

### judicata would bar 

### Mr. omran fiom relitigating them 

### in federal

### court. Therefore, transfer 

### of these claims 

### would be

### futile and not in

# G interest 

### ofjustice.


### Plaintiffs wrongful conviction claim relates to his arrest and

### trial in the United States 

### District 

### court for the

### western 

### District of Louisiana 

### for failure to 

### depart. 

### If the 

### plaintiff brought a case in Louisiana, 

### itwould be subject to the precedent 

### orthe 

### pftrr circuit court 

### ofAppeals. In order 

### to recover damages

### for an 

### allegedly unconstitutional 

### conviction or 

### imprisonment, a

### plaintiff "must prove ihat the 

### conviction or sentence has been reversed on 

### direct appear, expunged 

### by executive order, declared 

### invalid 

## b! a state 

### tribunal authorized 

### to make such determination, or called 

### into question by afederal 

### court's issuance

### ofawrit ofhabeas

### corpus." Heckv. Humphrey,512 

## u:s. 477,ig6_g7 (1994); see also 

### Boyd v. Biggers, 31 

### F.3d 

### 279,282-83

# (5iciti99+). since 

### ptaintiff has offered no evidencethat his 

### conviction has been reversed, expunged, or otherwise declared 

### invalid, he

### would be barred 

### from raising this 

### claim in feiera-i 

### district coun.



# . Additionally,justice does not require the court totransfer 

### plaintiffs complaint because 

### Mr. Omran

### will have the 

### opportunity to challenge his 

### failure to depart 

### conviction on Sixth Amendment 

### or other grounds through the 

### direct appeal 

### ofthat conviction. 

### Plaintiff has already

### filed a notice 

### ofappeal, and the case has been docketed 

### in the 

### Fifth 

## circuit. United States

### v. omran, 

### No. l5-30461 (5th 

### cir. docketed 

### May 22,2015).Since 

### plaintif'f sclaims 

### would not warrant adecision onthe merits 

### in federal



### district court, and 

### plaintiffhas had and

### will have other opportunities to raisethese claims, transfer of this case is 

### not in the interest

### of iustice. 

# III. Conclusion

Forthe reasons discussed above, the court finds that 

### it lacks

### jurisdiction over 

### plaintiff s

### claims. Defendant's 

### motion to dismiss is

### GRANTED. Plaintiff s

### motion

### for trial by

### jury is

## DENIED. Plaintiff s

### motion for appointment 

### of counsel is 

### DENIED.
Plaintiff s

### motion to proceed 

### in forma pauLeris is

### GRANTED for the 

### limited purpose 

### of addressing 

### this court's

### jurisdiction. Pursuantto28 U.S.C. $ 1915(b), prisoners 

### who are 

### allowed to proceed 

### in forma pauperis are

### still required, over time, 

### to pay the

### full amount of the

### filing

## fee. Thus,

### plaintiff shall be assessed, as a

### partial payment

### ofthe court's

### filing fee, an 

### initial sum of 

### twenty percent 

### of the greater 

### of (1) the average 

### monthly deposits 

### into his account, or 

### (2) the average 

### monthly balance in his account 

### for the 

### six-month period 

### immediately preceding the

### filing of his 

### complaint. Id. $ 

### 1915(b)(l). Thereafter, 

### plaintiff shall be required to make 

### monthly payments 01' 

### twenty percent 

### of the preceding 

### month's income creditedto his 

### account. Id. $ 

### 1915(bX2). The agency having custody 

### of 

### plaintiff shall 

### forward payments

### from 

### plaintiff saccount to the

### clerk of the 

### court of Federal 

### claims each 

### time the account balance exceeds $10 and 

### until the

### filing fee is paid 

### in

## full. Id.
The

### Clerk 

### ofthe Court is directedto enter

### judgment for 

### defendant. No costs. 

### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED.

atricia E. C