NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

______________________

PER CURIAM.

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

submits his 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: 08/08/2022
2 RASHID v. US

all rights, title, and interest in that property to Mr. Rashid 

in 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. Rashid filed a complaint in 

the Court of Federal Claims seeking damages in the same 

amount, invoking that court’s jurisdiction under the 

Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The 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 question 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 for 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 correctly 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 25

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 the 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: 08/08/2022
RASHID 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 his 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 relevant 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 FloorPro, Inc. v. United States, 680 F.3d 

1377, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(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: 08/08/2022
4 RASHID v. US

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

August 8, 2022

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

/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