# R[$E[\dAL stef 

# [.ourt of

# /t[trul @[sfmg 

# lln tbs

# 0dnite!

# St
No. 16-1363 C (Filed October 28, 2016) NOT FOR 

### PUBLICATION

* * * * :r. J. * * rk )k * * * * * * * *

* 

## ADESIJUOLAO.OGUNJOBI, *

,< 

## Plaintiff, "

THE 

### UMTED STATES,



## Defendant. *

*:k**********tk*****



### ORDER Adesijuola Ogunjobi filed the complaint 

### in this case pro seon October 19, 2016, along

### with an application to proceed in forrna 

### pauperis. 

### It is clear from a review ofthe complaint 

### that the subject 

### matter is not

### within this court's 

### jurisdiction, and accordingly 

### this case must be dismissed 

### pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules ofthe 

### United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). 

### Mister Ogunjobi's claim appears to be

### that he intervened 

### in the bankruptcy of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC but was not allowed to purchase 

### that business. Compl. fl'll

### 4-5. The complaint alleges 

### that the 

### bankruptcy court's refusal to let 

### Mr' Ogunjobi buy out the Madoff businessviolated the Fourteenth 

### Amendment. Comp. 

### ![ 19. More specifically, 

### Mr. Ogunjobi alleges a

### violation of his equal protection 

### rights and adeprivation of 

### liberty to pursue his chosen 

### career. Compl 

### ' 

### nll 20, 24. Subject-matter

### jurisdiction can be challenged bythe parties at anytime, or bythe court Euasponte. Folden u. 

### United States,379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Pursuant to RCFC 12(hX3), 

### "[i]f the court determines at any time 

### that

### it Iacks subject-matter

### jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the 

### action." When acourt undertakes 

### this determination, "the allegations stated 

### in the complaint aretaken as 

### true and

### jurisdiction is decided on the face ofthe 

### pleadings." Folden, 379 F.3d at 1354. 

# FILED
ocT 2 8 2016 U.S. COURTOF FEDEML CljIMS



### ?01q 1,e00 

### 0n00 1013 5bq5This court's

### jurisdiction must be based onthe alleged existence

### ofa contract



### with the federai government or on a

### violation bythe federal government of a law or 

### constitutional provision mandating the payment of 

### money. 28 U.S.C. S 1491(a)(1);
see also Total Med. Mgmt., 

### Inc. u. 

### United States, 104 F.3d 1314, 1319 (Fed. 

### Cir 199?) (holding

### that a

### plaintiff must plead the elements of a

### valid contract 

### in order to establish 

### jurisdiction based on acontract

### with the 

### United States); United States u.Testan, 

### 424IJ.5.392, 398 (1976) (noting

### that theTuckerAct confers

### jurisdiction only where the federal statute allegedly violated confers "asubstantive 

### right to recover money damages from the 

### United States"); Contreras u. United States,64 Fed. Cl. 583, 588 (2005) (holding

### thatthis court's

### jurisdiction "must be based on a law or regulation 

### that either entitles the 

### plaintiff to a payment of money from the government, or places a

### duty uponthe government, the breach ofwhich gives the 

### plaintiff a money damages remedy"); Eastport S.S. Corp. u. United States, 372 F.2d 1002, 1007 (Ct. Cl. 1967) (explaining 

### that our court does not have

### jurisdiction to hear "every claim 

### involving or invoking the 

### Constitution"). Mister Ogunjobi 

### identifies no such source. As a

### preliminary matter, the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to federal

### officials. Fry u. 

### United States,72 Fed. Cl. 500, 508 (2006) (citing S F.

### Arts 

### & Athletics, 

### Inc, u, U.S. Olympic Comrn.,483 U.S. 522,542 n.21 (1987)). Assuming 

### that Mr. Ogunjobi meant to assert claims under the 

### Fifth Amendment, based on his discussion of equal protection and deprivation of 

### liberty, Compl. 

### tftl 20, 24, t}:.e relevant provision is not money-mandating. See LeBIanc u. United Stotes, 50 F.3d 

### f025, 1028 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995) (holding

### that the equai protection component 

### ofthe Fifth Amendment is not money-mandating) 

### (citing Carruth u. 

### United States, 627 F.2d 1068, 1081 (1980)). To the extent 

### that Mr. Ogunjobi is 

### attempting to assert a 

### Fifth Amendment due processclaim, 

### that provision is not money-mandating.l 

### Smith u. 

### United States, ?09 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2013) (holding 

### that the Due Process Clauses 

### ofboth the 

### Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments are not moneymandating); Brown u. United States,227 Ct. Cl. 786, 787 (1981) (frnding no 

### jurisdiction over claim alleging deprivation of 

### liberty inviolation ofthe 

### Fifth Amendment). Norfor

### that matter does 

### this court have

### jurisdiction over appeals 

### ofthe actions 

### ofother courts.2 SeeJoshua u. United States, 

### I7 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Ctr.


## r The Due Process Clause ofthe 

### Fifth Amendment may only be a basis for our 

### jurisdiction when aclaim seeks the 

### return of money paid tothefederal government underthe 

### rubric of an 

### illegal cxaction. See Aerolineas Argentinas u. United States, 77 F.3d 1564, 15?3 Ged. 

### Cir. 1996\: Coleman u. United Srores, No. 

### l3-43IC,2014 WL 949984, at *3 (Fed. Cl. 

### Mar. 7,2OI4). 2 

### Plaintif{'s complaint also makes a passing reference tothe 

### Bill of Rights 

### in the context of an action brought against him by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Compl. nn 25-27. The court notes 

### that tothe extent the1994) (holding

### thatthis court "does not have

### jurisdiction to review the decisions 

### of



### district courts

. . .

### relating to proceedings before those courts"); Vereda, 

### Ltda. u. 

### [Jnited States,271 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining 

### thatthis court is not an appellate

### tribunal, and "does not have

### jurisdiction to review the decisions of 

### district courts"); 

### Bafford u. (Jnited Sto,es, No. 09-030, 2009

### WL 2391785, at *4 (Fed' CLAug. 3, 2009) (explaining 

### that this court does not have

### jurisdiction to reviewthe decisions offederal courts of appeal). Moreover, 

### it appears 

### that plaintiff is not 

### actually seeking money damages 

### in his claim for 

### relief. Compl. 'lf

### fl R 

### ("Plaintiff

. . .is not collecting one centfrom the government (United States)"); 

### V ("Plaintiff is not seeking any payment onthe claim"); W ("United States

### will not pay out one cent of

### this claim"); X 

### ("Plaintiff has no 

### intention whatsoever to 

### litigate this Claim");

### Y ("Plaintiff 

### will not seek any 

### relief from

### this court"); Z (seeking "such other relief, 

### including equitable and 

### injunctive relief, as

### this court may deem

### just and proper as long as such other relief 

### will not 

### result 

### in any monetary damages"). The court cannot exercise

### jurisdiction over 

### plaintiff's claims because 

## - other

### than in limited circumstances, none ofwhich apply here3

## - this court only has

### jurisdiction over claims for money damages' Testan,424 U.S. at 398. The Court appreciates 

### Mr. Ogunjobi's efforts 

### in compiling his 67 page complaint @ut regrets 

### that 

### it includes improper and offensive language 

### that is the sort of scandalous or 

### impertinent materiala whichwould be stricken under RCFC

complaint is about an SEC action, or a court's enforcement 

### thereol this court has no 

### jurisdiction. See Grady u. United Stotes, 565 Fed.Appx. 870, 872 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2014) 

### (finding no

### jurisdiction over aclaim 

### that the SEC breached 

### its duty to 

### plaintiff becausethe applicable statutes were not money-mandating). 3This court also has

### jurisdiction: (1)to provide 

### reliefin addition to money damages "as an incident 

### ofand collateral to any such [money] judgment" over which 

### it has 

### jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. $ 1a91(a)(2); (2) over contract disputes 

### arising under

### 4l U.S.C. S?104(b)(1), 28 U.S.C. $ 1a91(a)(2); and (3) over bid protests brought "bv an interested 

### party objecting to asolicitation by a Federal agency for bids or proposals for a proposed contract or to a proposed award or the award of acontract or any alleged

### violation ofstatute or regulation 

### in connection

### with a procurement or a proposed procurement," 28 U.S.C. S 1491(b). Because 

### Mr' Ogunjobi is not seeking money damages, 

### this court has no

### jurisdiction to provide 

### additional relief "incident of and coliateral to" such money

### judgement. His complaint is not acontract dispute brought under 41 U.S.C. S7104(b)(1), nor is

### it acomplaint brought "by an interested 

### party objecting to asolicitation by a Federal agency."


### a See, e.g., Compl. pp. 31-32 n. 33; pp. 35-36 n. 34;fl

### Y. A complaint 

### in our court is notthe placefor awould-be 

### litigant's opinion on anthropological, historical, or

### 12(0). But Mr. Ogunjobi seems to misunderstand the

### jurisdiction ofour court

## - as

he has not pled the

### violation of a law or 

### constitutional provision 

### that would place 

### this matter

### within our

### jurisdiction.
For the foregoing reasons, 

### plaintiff's complaint is 

### DISMISSED as beyond our court's

### jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3). 

### Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby 

### GRANTED, and thus 

### Mr. Ogunjobi need not pay the

### filing fee. The Clerk shall close the case.


### IT IS SO 

### ORDEBED.

religious matters, 

### particularly when derogatory and 

### insulting terminology is employed. 

### 4-