NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

AROR ARK O'DIAH,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-1227, 2017-1534

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:16-cv-00931-EDK, Judge Elaine Kaplan.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AROR ARK O'DIAH,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-2211

______________________ 
2 O'DIAH v. UNITED STATES

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:16-cv-00931-EDK, Judge Elaine Kaplan.

______________________ 

Decided: January 16, 2018

______________________ 

 AROR ARK O'DIAH, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.

 KELLY A. KRYSTYNIAK, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by CHAD A. READLER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

BRIAN A. MIZOGUCHI. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, DYK, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Aror Ark O’Diah appeals from a judgment of the 

Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his 

complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Nos.

2017-1227 and 2017-1534.1) He also appeals a subsequent order of the Claims Court prohibiting him from 

filing any additional complaints without first seeking 

leave to do so from that court’s Chief Judge. (No. 2017-

2211.) We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

This is the fourth Claims Court action filed by Mr. 

O’Diah making largely the same allegations of conspiracy 

and malfeasance by a variety of state and federal officials

 

1 Mr. O’Diah filed two notices of appeal related to 

the dismissal of his complaint: one following the Claims 

Court’s initial dismissal (No. 2017-1227) and another 

after it denied reconsideration (No. 2017-1534). 
O'DIAH v. UNITED STATES 3

and private entities. His first three actions were consolidated and dismissed by the Claims Court, which found 

that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over most of Mr. 

O’Diah’s claims and that his remaining allegations failed 

to state a plausible claim for relief. O’Diah v. United 

States, Nos. 15-332C, -400C, -1000C, 2016 WL 1019251, 

at *2–4 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 14, 2016). We dismissed Mr. 

O’Diah’s appeal in those consolidated actions as untimely 

because his notice of appeal was received by the Claims 

Court three days after the deadline. O’Diah v. United 

States, No. 2016-2098, slip op. at 1–2 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 

2016) (per curiam). 

After Mr. O’Diah filed this fourth action in the Claims 

Court, the court again determined that it lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction. O’Diah v. United States, No. 16-

931C, 2016 WL 6560393, at *2–3 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 3, 

2016). A month later, Mr. O’Diah submitted yet another 

complaint based on roughly the same set of allegations,

and the Claims Court ordered him to show cause why he 

should not be prohibited from filing future complaints 

without leave of the court. Mr. O’Diah’s response to the 

show-cause order merely repeated the allegations in his 

complaints, and the Claims Court proceeded to enjoin Mr. 

O’Diah from making any additional filings in the Claims 

Court without first obtaining leave to do so from the Chief 

Judge of that court.

Mr. O’Diah timely appealed from the dismissal of his 

fourth complaint and the injunction against further 

filings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

We review de novo a decision by the Claims Court to 

dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. PetroHunt, L.L.C. v. United States, 862 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. 

Cir. 2017). The Tucker Act defines the scope of the 

Claims Court’s jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1491. The Tuck-
4 O'DIAH v. UNITED STATES

er Act waives sovereign immunity for and provides 

Claims Court jurisdiction over “any claim against the 

United States founded either upon the Constitution, or 

any Act of Congress 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.” Id. § 1491(a)(1).

Mr. O’Diah’s complaint contains a multitude of allegations concerning officials and agencies at all levels of 

government, including several state and federal judges, as 

well as a number of corporations and private individuals. He alleges “malicious prosecutions, unjust convictions, imprisonments, . . . bodily injuries[,] . . . seizures of 

properties, [and] breaches of implied contract.” Compl. 

1. As examples of these misdeeds, Mr. O’Diah alleges 

undelivered and confiscated mail, misrepresented childsupport obligations, several physical assaults, exposure to 

a radioactive substance, discrimination by government 

agencies on the basis of national origin, and an attempt 

by a federal judge to have Mr. O’Diah kidnapped or murdered. He also alleges physical injuries and deprivations 

of rights appearing to stem from time he spent in state 

custody in New York, as well as the unlawful seizure of 

his personal property and assets by New York state 

officials.

The Claims Court only has jurisdiction to hear claims 

against the United States. United States v. Sherwood, 

312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941). To the extent that Mr. O’Diah’s 

complaint seeks relief against defendants other than the 

United States, including state or local entities and private 

individuals and corporations, the Claims Court correctly 

dismissed those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See id.

So far as Mr. O’Diah claims that federal officials conspired to effectuate the harms he attributes to state-level 

officials, such as the taking of his property and assets, 
O'DIAH v. UNITED STATES 5

these claims are unsupported by sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim for relief. They amount, at 

most, to “bare assertion[s]” and “legal conclusion[s],” 

which on their own are insufficient to withstand a motion 

to dismiss. Todd Constr., L.P. v. United States, 656 F.3d 

1306, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 677–80 (2009)).

The other allegations with respect to the United 

States government—such as fraud and the deprivation of 

civil rights—sound in tort, and the Claims Court properly 

dismissed each of these claims as falling outside of its 

limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., United States Marine, Inc. 

v. United States, 722 F.3d 1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 

2013). The mishandling of mail, a new allegation in this 

version of Mr. O’Diah’s complaint, also sounds in tort and 

falls outside of the Claims Court’s jurisdiction. See, e.g., 

Webber v. United States, 231 Ct. Cl. 1009, 1009 (1982) 

(per curiam). The Claims Court also lacks jurisdiction to 

review actions taken by other federal courts in Mr. 

O’Diah’s other lawsuits. E.g., Harris v. United States, 868 

F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam). Although

Mr. O’Diah refers to breach of contract in his complaint,

nowhere does he allege facts suggesting that he has 

entered into any contract, express or implied, with the 

federal government.

In short, Mr. O’Diah’s complaint asserts no claims 

falling within the Claims Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The Claims Court correctly determined that it 

lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. O’Diah’s 

claims.

Finally, we review the Claim Court’s imposition of a 

sanction on Mr. O’Diah for abuse of discretion. 1-10 

Indus. Assocs., LLC v. United States, 528 F.3d 859, 867 

(Fed. Cir. 2008). “[C]ourts are particularly cautious about 

imposing sanctions on a pro se litigant, whose improper 

conduct may be attributed to ignorance of the law and 
6 O'DIAH v. UNITED STATES

proper procedures.” Finch v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 926 

F.2d 1574, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Nevertheless, we have 

previously imposed anti-filing sanctions where a pro se 

litigant has engaged in repeated and frivolous lawsuits. Bergman v. Dep’t of Commerce, 3 F.3d 432, 435 

(Fed. Cir. 1993); see also In re Powell, 851 F.2d 427, 430–

31 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (discussing anti-filing 

injunctions). In this case, the Claims Court reviewed the 

record and procedural history before imposing a sanction, 

including Mr. O’Diah’s repeated, duplicative filings in 

that court and elsewhere. The Claims Court was well 

within its discretion when it ordered the anti-filing sanction in light of Mr. O’Diah’s prior filings. Such an injunction will protect judicial resources while ensuring that the 

courthouse doors are open to Mr. O’Diah should he one 

day seek to assert other claims that do fall within the 

Claims Court’s jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.