# ORIGINAL 3Jn tbe Wniteb**~tates** 

# QCourt ofjf 

# eberal QCiaitns No. 1 8 -17 C (Filed June 29, 20 1 8) NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

### ************************ 

### * * MUHAMMAD JALAL-DEEN * 

### AKBAR, * * Plaintiff, 

### * v . 

### * * 

### THE UNITED STATES, * * Defen dant. 

### * 

### * ************************ 

# FILED JUN 29 2018 U

.S

. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS



### MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER WOLSKI, Judge. On Dece mber 29, 2017, Muhammad Jalal-Deen Akbar, fil ed a complaint in this court in which h e appears to allege that an individual has been withholding from him disability b enefits paid by the Department of Veter a ns Affairs. The government filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on F ebru ary 27, 2018 , contending that Mr. Akbar has fai led to allege a claim within this court's subject

matter jurisdiction. On May, 22, 20 1 8, Mr. Akbar filed a r esponse to t h e government's motion to dismi ss a nd a motion for s umm ary judgme n t. S h ortly thereafter, on June 5, 2018, the government filed a r eply in support of its motion

. Finally, on June 15, 2018 , plaintiff fil ed a reply in s upport of his motion for summary judgment. Oral argument is unnecessary. For the reasons stated below, the government's motion is 

### GRANTED
. I
. BACKGROUND As best as the Court can discern from his rather unconventional submissions, Mr. Akbar is a prisoner in federal custody at a facility in Texas
. Compl. Ex. 1, at 1. The nature of his claim , or claims, is very difficult to discern. The compl aint begins by asserting that thi s court has jurisdiction over hi s claim because it concerns breach of a contract, military pay, and the failure to pay 

### Mr. Akbar his veterans'


### 7012 3460 0001 7791 7852benefits. Compl. at 1. He claims an entitlement to these benefits by virtue of his being entirely disabled due to service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder. 

### Id. Mister Akbar maintains that a fiduciary has misappropriated and embezzled some of his benefits. 

### Id. Attached to the complaint were a series of documents which have little to no apparent relevance to a claim for veterans' benefits. For example, Mr. Akbar included a copy of a request for a transfer to a different federal prison and a motion to compel a public defender to surrender his case file. 

### See Compl. Ex. 1, at 1-3. A copy of an application to proceed 

### in forma pauperis filed in a district court action, which lists veterans' benefits as his only source of income, sheds some light on his claim. 1 

### See id. at 5. It identifies several months for which his fiduciary had not deposited Mr. Akbar's disability benefits into his prison account. 

### Id. Plaintiff also included a copy of a psychiatric evaluation which discusses his posttraumatic stress disorder. 

### Id. at 12-17. Unsurprisingly, the government has moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that plaintiff has failed to state a claim within our court's subject-matter jurisdiction. Def.'s Mot. at 1-4. The government notes that merely referencing the word "contract" or "military pay" does not itself provide this court with jurisdiction. 

### Id. Plaintiffs opposition to that motion, which included some pages identified as a motion for summary judgment, does little to shed light on the nature of his claims. This filing is a compilation of documents, including the first page of defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, excerpts from Mr. Akbar's military records, and records of transactions from Mr. Akbar's inmate trust account. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. & Cross-Mot. for Summ. 

### J. at 1-17. In the part of this submission entitled a summary judgment motion, Mr. Akbar appears to contend that one Arthur A. Cappilla---who does not appear to be a federal employee---has misappropriated funds in his capacity as the fiduciary charged with the management of Mr. Akbar's finances. 

### Id. at 24. It appears that Mr. Cappilla is charged with such guardianship because Mr. Akbar's mental illness renders him incompetent in such matters. 

### See id. at 24-26. Plaintiff seems to question the size of the deposits into his prison

1 Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed 

### in forma pauperis in this case, which the government has not opposed. That application is 

### GRANTED. Notwithstanding the waiver, prisoners seeking to proceed 

### in forma pauperis are required to pay, over time, the filing fee in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Thus, Mr. Akbar shall be assessed, as a partial payment of the 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 her account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint. 

### Id.§ 1915(b)(l). Thereafter, Mr. Akbar shall be required to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to his account. 

### Id. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of Mr. Akbar shall forward payments from his account to the Clerk of the Court of Federal Claims each time the account balance exceeds $10 and until such time as the filing fee is paid in full. 

### Id.



### - 2

-account as well as their frequency, and he has submitted prison account records showing that a $200 deposit has not been received on a monthly basis. 

### Id. at 5-17. In the reply in support of its motion, the defendant notes that Mr. Akbar's response does nothing to indicate that he has a claim within our jurisdiction and that, to the extent his response references any cognizable claim at all, those claims sound in tort and are not made against the United States government. Def.'s Reply at 1-4. The final submission, Mr. Akbar's reply in support of his motion for summary judgment, adds little clarity to the nature of his claim. He asserts that he was beaten by prison guards; disputes various aspects of his psychiatric evaluation report, another copy of which he includes and upon which he wrote comments; contends that he was not mentally competent to stand trial when he was convicted in the 1980s; and again asserts his entitlement to veterans' benefits. Pl.'s Reply in Support of Mot. for Summ. 

### J. at 2, 4, 6, 13.


### II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review Under Rule 12(b)(l) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, claims brought before this court must be dismissed when it is shown that the court lacks jurisdiction over their subject matter. When considering a motion to dismiss a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, courts will normally accept as true all factual allegations made by the pleader and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to that party. 

### See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); 

### Pixton v. B&B Plastics, Inc., 291F.3d1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2002); 

### CBY Design Builders v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 303, 325 (2012). While a 

### prose plaintiff's filings are to be liberally construed, 

### see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), this lenient standard cannot save claims which are outside the court's jurisdiction from being dismissed, 

### see Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The party invoking a court's jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it, and must ultimately do so by a preponderance of the evidence. 

### See McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); 

### Reynolds v. Army & 

### Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 

### Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d 991, 993 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 

### B. Analysis The only claim for money Mr. Akbar appears to have against the United States is one related to his veterans' benefits. The Court of Federal Claims, however, has no jurisdiction to review any claim for veterans' benefits. 

### See

- 3

-

### Sindram u. 

### United States , 130 F. App'x 456, 458 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing 38 U.S.C. 

### §§ 725 1

- 98)

. S u ch claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Cou rt of Appeals for Veterans' Cl aims. 

### Id. The court also lacks jui·is diction over claims sounding in tort. 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1491(a)(l); 

### Sch illinger u. 

### United S tates, 1 55 U .S. 1 63, 1 69 ( 1 894)

. To the extent p laintiff 's claims r egarding the theft of his veterans' benefits, or his abuse by prison guards, are decipherable , they clearly sound in tort a nd thus cannot be h eard in t his court
. The sam e is tru e for Mr. Akbar's dis putes regarding the conduct of his cr iminal trial , or allegations of cr iminal conduct on t h e part of government off icials, as such matters are reserved for the district courts a nd the appropri ate co urts of appeal. 

### Joshua u. 

### United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994); 

### Stanwych u. 

### United Sta tes, 1 27 Fed. Cl. 308, 3 1 3-14 (20 16). Even ifMr. Cappilla were an authorized agent of the Unite d States government
--- a matter which i s not properly allege d a nd explained in the complaint and other papers- --his alleged actions are either tortious or criminal and thus not among the things our co urt i s empowered to h ear. Accordingly , non e of Mr. Akbar's claims are within our s ubj ect-matter jurisdiction. 2 

### III. 

### CONCLUSION For the r easons stated above , th e governme nt's motion to dismiss this case is 

### GRANTED and plaint iff's motion for s umm ary judgment is 

### DENIED. The Clerk shall close t h e case . No costs s h all be awarded.


### IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 As th e Court lacks jurisdiction over his claims , plaintiffs motion for summary judgme nt is 

### DENIED as moot.



### - 4

- 

# - . j