N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
AMIN A. RASHID, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2022

- 1809

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:21

- cv

- 02213

- EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________ P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

The United States moves to summarily affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing Amin A. Rashid’s complaint. Mr. Rashid opposes the motion and moves for summary reversal. Mr. Rashid also submit s h is informal opening brief

. Mr. Rashid alleges in his complaint that federal agents seized $1,132,146.00 from Jose Grajales in connection with Mr. Grajales’ arrest in 1991 and that Mr. Grajales assigned Case: 22-1809 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 08/08/2022RASHID v. US 2

all rights, title, and interest in that property to Mr. Rashid i n November 1995 . Mr. Rashid alleges that he demanded return of that property on May 20, 1996

, but the government denied his claim

. On November 24, 2021, Mr. Ras h id filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims seeking damages in the same

amount , invoking that cour t’s jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). T he Court of Federal Claims issued an order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that it was out of time under the applicable six

- year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C

. § 2501. The court later denied reconsideration. Mr. Rashid then appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction over his appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

We agree that summary affirmance is appropriate here because there is no “substantial questio n regarding the outcome” of Mr. Rashid’s appeal. Joshua v. United States

, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). The Supreme Court has held that f or a suit to come within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act , it must be filed within the six years permitted by the statute of limitations. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States , 552 U.S. 130, 134, 136 (2008). The Court of Federal Claims here correct ly held that Mr. Rashid’s claim was filed out of time. All the events that formed Mr. Rashid’s alleged basis for his claim occurred more than 2 5 years before he filed his complaint.

The Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct in rejecting Mr. Rashid’s argument that his claim did not accrue until he only recently became aware of a 1992 entry on the public docket in Mr. Grajales’ criminal proceeding that , according to Mr. Rashid, reveals that the government’s basis for denying his claim was allegedly false. To the extent Mr. Rashid asserts a claim under th e Takings Clause, such a claim accrues when “the claimant knew or should have known that the claim existed.” Navajo Nation v. United Case: 22-1809 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 08/08/2022RASHID v. US 3

States , 631 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Court of Federal Claims correctly held in this case that Mr. Rashid

at least “should have known” that his claim existed based on that public record more than six years before filing the present action

. We have considered Mr. Rashid’s other arguments but do not find them to raise a substantial question as to the outcome of h is appeal. Mr. Rashid argues that his claim did not accrue until he learned about the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Pease , 331 F.3d 809 (11th Cir. 2003), but even if that decision were somehow relev ant to when his claim accrued, his claim would still have been filed out of time

. We also reject Mr. Rashid ’s suggestion that the continuing claims doctrine applies here. That doctrine does not apply when the claim is based on a “single distinct event,” here the government’s refusal to return the money. Brown Park Ests.

- Fairfield Dev. Co. v. United States , 127 F.3d 1449, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1997)

. Finally, the jurisdictional nature of the statute of limitations makes equitable tolling unavailable. See Floo rPro, Inc. v. United States , 680 F.3d 1377, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

. Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted.The Court of Federal Claims’ judgment is summarily affirmed.

(2) All pending motions are denied as moot. Case: 22-1809 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 08/08/2022RASHID v. US 4

( 3 ) Each side shall bear its own costs.

August 8 , 2022 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 8, 2022 Case: 22-1809 Document: 9 Page: 4 Filed: 08/08/2022