# ()R!$INAI

Iftr

# tllt @nf

# tp!

# $tttts @ourt of

# /r[prs[ @luimg F l

# LED Pro Se 

### No.

# l6-e3lc NOV

## - 3 2016 

### (Filed: November 3,

### 2016 |

### Notfor

# Publication) .Eor;Soorr;t?fi.



# ) Keywords: Pro Se

### Complaint; 

### Tort AROR 

### ARK

# O'DIAH, ) Claims; 

### Criminal Claims; 

# ) Constitutional Claims; 42 U.S.C. 

# Plaintiff, ) gg 1983 

### and 1985; Breach 

### of Contract.

) 

## v.) ) 

### THE 

### UNITED STATES OF

## AMERICA, ) ) 

# Defendant. )



### ArorArk

### O'Diai, Brooklyn, 

### NY, Plaintiff pro se.


### Mollie L. Finnan, 

## Tial Attomey,with whom were 

### Brian A. Mizoguchi, Assistant 

### Director, Robert E. 

### Kirschman, -Ir., 

### Director, and 

### Benjamin C. 

### Mizer, 

### Acting Assistant 

### Attomey General, 

### Commercial 

### Litigation Branch, U.S. Department 

### of Justice, Washington, 

### DC,

### for Defendant.



### OPINIONAND ORDER

This case is 

### currently before the Court on the 

### govemment's motion to dismissthe complaint pursuant 

### to Rule 

### 12(bXl) of the Rules

### of the Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims (RCFC). Forthe reasons discussed 

### below,the

### govemment's motion to dismiss is

### GRANTED.I
BACKGROUND

This is the

### fourth complaint thatthe 

### pro se

### plaintiffAror

### Ark O'Diah has

### filed 

### in this Court. 

### Mr. O'Diah's three 

### prior complaints were dismissed 

### in an unpublished 

### opinion the Court issued some 

### four months before the present case was

### filed. O,Diah v. United States, Case Nos. 

### l5-332C,15-400C, 15-1000C,2016 

### WL 1019251 (Fed. 

### Cl. Mar. 

### 14,2016). As the 

### Court noted when 

### it dismissed 

### Mr. O'Diah's previous complaints, 

### Mr. 

### O'Diah has also 

### filed many 

### similar complaints 

### in other

### jurisdictions.



### ' Mr. O'Diah has also 

### filed a 

### motion to proceed 

### in forma pauperis along 

### with his 

### complaint. The 

### Court hereby 

### GRANTS that 

### motion solelyfor purposes 

### of deciding the pending 

### motion to dismiss.



## ?01q 

## leDB 0000 1011 1?P0

### Inthis fourth complaint, 

### Mr. O'Diah appearsto repeat the grievances he

expressed in his 

### prior three complaints, 

### in some instances expanding upon them. These include allegations 

### of mental, 

### physical, and 

### emotional abuse, assault, attempted 

### kidnapping, attempted murder, false arrest, 

### malicious prosecution, and unjust 

### conviction and 

### imprisonment. See

### Compl. 

### aI

## l-2, 4-5,8-9, 15,23-24, Dkt. 

### No. 1.

### They also include allegations 

### by 

### Mr. O'Diah that he has been subjected

### to cruel and unusual 

### confinement 

### involving exposure 

### to radioactive chemicals. See 

### id. at

### 4, 

### 15,23-24.In addition, Mr. 

### O'Diah repeats, and sometimes expands upon, 

### prior claims 

### of unlawfirl search, seizure, and destruction 

### of property, intentional misrepresentation and fraud 

### with respect to his business 

### activities and 

### child support 

### obligations, "false and 

### contrived statements and perjured andfabricated 

### testimonies," "retaliatory and

### discriminatory practices," and "breaches 

### of implied contract." See 

### id. at

## 1,34, 17,23-24,26. Mr. O'Diartr also again alleges, as he

### did in his 

### prior three complaints, that 

### all ofthese actions, and a conspiracy 

### to commit the same, have been carried out 

### by a

### variety 

### of federal entities, 

### officers, and agents; the state 

### of 

### NewYork; and state and 

### local level 

### officers and agents, as

### well as private entities and 

### hisformer attorneys. See 

### id. at

### 2,4-7, 11-18,23-26,

Thisfourth complaint also includes new ailegations conceming actions 

### ofthe United States Postal Service, apparently 

### in conspiracy 

### with the Department 

### ofJustice. See 

### id. at 

### 1,7,2710. According to 

### Mr. O'Diah, the Postal Service 

### deliberately failedto deliver and/or destroyed anotice 

### of appeal 

### of this Court's decision dismissing his three earlier 

### complaints. See 

### id. at

### 27-30.



### Mr. O'Diah claims the actions 

### of which he complains resulted 

### in deprivations 

### of his rights underthe 

### United States

### Constitution, including his rights under the 

### First, Fourth, 

### Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and 

### Eighth Amendments. See 

### id. at

## l-2,4,9,10,291I, 36. He also alleges 

### violations 

### of42 U.S.C. $$ 19S3, 1985, and 1986, as

### well as 

### intentional misrepresentation and fraud, negligence, and undefined 

### "joint breaches 

### offiduciary duties." See 

### id. at 

## 1,34, 13,17-18,26,31. He also seeks

### tocollaterally attack orders andjudgments 

### by other courts. See 

### id. at 6. 

### Finally, 

### Mr. O'Diah demands $400 

### billion 

### in damages and 

### injunctive 

### relief. See 

### id. at 

### 1,35-36.

DISCUSSION 

# I. Standards 

### for Motion to Dismiss 

### Under 

### RCFC 

### 12(bxl)

The 

### Court of Federal 

### Claims is a court 

### of 

### "limitedjurisdiction.,, 

## E4, Marcum 

### LLP v. 

### United States, 753 

### F.3d 1380, 1382 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2014). The courr's 

### primary grant

### of jurisdiction is

### found 

### in the 

### Tucker

### Act,which gives the court

### jurisdiction ,,to render 

### judgment upon any 

### claim against the 

### United States founded either upon the 

### constitution, or any

### Act ofCongress or any 

### regulation

### ofan executive department, or upon any express or 

### implied contract 

### with the 

### United States, 

### orfor liquidated or 

### unliquidated damages 

### in
cases 

### not sounding 

### in

### tort." 28 

### U.S.C. g 1491(a)(1). The

### TuckerAct thus waives the sovereign 

### immunity of the 

### United States 

### toallow asuit 

### for money damages. 

### United states 

### v. 

### Mitchell,463 

### u.s. 206,212 (1983). 

### It does not, however, confer any substantive rights on a

### plaintiff. United Statesv.

### Testan,424 

### U.5. 392,398 (1976). Therefore, to 

### invoke the 

### court's Tucker Act

### jurisdiction, a

### plaintiff must 

### identi& an independent source

### ofa substantive 

### right to money damages 

### from the 

### United States 

### arising out 

### of a contract,

statute, 

### regulation, or 

### constitutional provision. Jan's 

### Helicopter Serv.. 

### Inc.v. Fed. 

### AviationAdmin., 525 

### F.3d 1299,1306 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2008); seealso Golden Pac. Bancom 

### v. United States, 15 

### F.3d 1066, 1076 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994).



### Indeciding a 

### motion to dismiss 

### for lack 

### ofsubject matter 

### jurisdiction, the 

### Court accepts astrue 

### all undisputed facts 

### in the pleadings and draws 

### all reasonable inferences 

### in favor 

### of the 

### plaintiff. Trusted 

### Inteeration. Inc.v. 

### United States, 659 

### F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2011). 

### Further, 

### it is

### well established that complaints 

### frled by 

### pro se 

### plaintiffs (like this one) are held 

### to "less stringent standards than

### formal pleadings drafted 

### by lawyers." Haines

### v. 

### Kerner,404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Nonetheless, even 

### pro se

### plaintiffs must persuade the

### court that

### jurisdictional requirements have been met. Bernard 

### v. United States, 59 Fed. 

### Cl.497,499 (2004), 

### affd, 98 Fed.

### App'x 860 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2004). 

# II. Application to 

### Mr. O'Diah's Complaint Applying these standards, the Court concludes

## that-for much the same reasons that 

### it dismissed 

### Mr. O'Diah's previous 

### complaint-it also lacks subject matter 

### jurisdiction over the

### claims contained in his 

### fourth complaint,

### which-as bestthe 

### Court

can understand 

### them-are mostly identical to his previous claims.


### First, the 

### Court 

### ofFederal Claims has no

### jurisdiction to entertain claims against any defendant other thanthe 

### United States. See 

### United States 

### v. Sherwood, 312 

### U.S. 584, 588 ( 1941) 

## ("[]fthe relief sought is against others than the 

### United Statesthe suit as

### to them must be ignored as beyond the

### jurisdiction ofthe court."). 

### Accordingly, Mr. O'Diah's claims against 

### private entities, organs 

### of stategovemment, 

### or any other parties besidesthe 

### United States must be dismissed.

The 

### Court 

### ofFederal Claims' 

### jurisdiction also does not extend 

### to

### criminal matters. See Upshaw 

### v. United States, 599 Fed.

### App'x 387, 388 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2015) (per 

### curiam); Joshua

### v. United States, 

### l7 F.3d 

### 378,379 (Fed 

### Cir. 1994). 

### Nor does 

### it extend 

### to any claims 

### "sounding in

### tort." See28 

### U.S.C. $ 1491(aX1); see also Keene Corp. v. 

### United States, 508 

### U.S.

### 200,214 (1993) 

### ("[T]ort cases areoutside the

### jurisdiction 

### ofthe Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims

. . . 

### ."); Brown v. 

### United States, 105 

### F.3d 621,623 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1997)). 

### Accordingly, the 

### Court cannot assert

### jurisdiction over 

### Mr. O'Diah's claims related 

### to attempted murder, conspiracy, 

### unlawful arrest and 

### imprisonment, assault and battery, exposure 

### to hazardous materials, mental, 

### physicalor emotional abuse, 

### intentional misrepresentation andfraud, breach 

### offiduciary duties and soon, asthose claims can 

### only be construed as

### alleging criminal violations or torts.


### Moreover, the 

### Court's

### jurisdiction over 

### constitutional claims is 

### limited to those 

### which are based on 

### constitutional provisions that are 

### "money-mandating." See 

### Brown, 105 F.3d at 623; 

### LeBlanc v. United States, 50 

### F.3d 1025,1028 (Fed.

### Cir. 1995). 

### Accordingly, the 

### Court lacks

### jurisdiction over 

### Mr. O'Diah's claims underthe 

### First, Fourth, 

### Sixth, Seventh, 

### Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as

### well as his claims under the 

### FifthAmendment's Due Process Clause, as those 

### provisions do 

### not give rise 

### to a substantive 

### right to money damages. See 

### United States 

### v. 

### Connolly,716 F.2d 882, 

### 886-87 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1983) 

### (First Amendment); 

### Brown, 105 F.3d at 623 

### (Fourth Amendment);

Dupre v. 

### United States 

### ,229 Ct. 

### Cl.706,706 (1981) (per 

### curiam) (Fourth and 

### Sixth Amendments); 

### LeBlanc, 50 F.3d

### at 1028 

### (Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and Fourteenth 

### Amendment's Due Process Clause); Golden Pac. 

### Bancom, 15 F.3d 

### at 1076 

### (Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause); 

### Winstonv. United States,465 F.

### App'x 960, 961 (Fed. 

### Cir.2012) (Sixth Amendment); Jaffer v. 

### United Stares, 

### No. 95-5127, 1995 

### WL 592017, at

### *2 (Fed. 

### Cir. Oct. 

### 6 1995) (per 

### curiam) (Seventh

### Amendment); Trafny v. United States, 503 

### F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2007) (per 

### curiam) (Eighth Amendment). 

### Similarly, the Court does not possess 

### jurisdiction to entertain 

### Mr. O' Diah's claims 

### ofalleged 

### civil rights violations premised upon, among other statutes, sections 1983 and 1985 

### ofTitle 42 

### of the 

### United States Code. See. e.s., Jefferson 

### v. United States, 104 Fed. 

### Cl. 81,89 

### (2012) (citing 

### multiple cases 

### holding that the 

### Court 

### ofFederal Claims lacks 

### jurisdiction to entertain claims 

### brought under 42 

### U.S.C. $$1983 

### or 1985).
Furthermore, 

### this Court lacks

### jurisdiction to 

### review decisions 

### of the Federal 

### district courts and state courts. Joshua, 17 F.3d at 379 

### (holding that 

### this Court "does 

### not have

### jurisdiction to review the decisions

### ofdistrict courts

. . .

### relating to proceedings beforethose 

### courts"); Fielderv. Credit Acceptance 

### Corp., 188 

### F.3d 1031, 1034 (8th 

### Cir. 1999) 

### (explaining lower Federal courts lack

### jurisdiction to review state courtjudgments). Thus, 

### to the extent 

### Mr. O'Diah asks 

### this Court 

### to review decisions 

### of state and Federal courts in 

### New 

### York or elsewhere, those claims must be dismissed 

### for lack

## of jurisdiction.2
Finally, although 

### this Court possesses

### jurisdiction underthe

### Tucker

### Act to entertain claims founded on conftacts 

### with the 

### United States, 

### Mr. O'Diah has 

### not adequately alleged the existence

### of a contract 

### with the 

### United States. See 

### Kam-Almaz v. 

### United States, 682 

### F.3d 1364,1368 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2012) (to allegethe existence

### ofa contract 

### with the 

### United States, a

### plaintiff must allege 

### "(1) mutuality of intent, (2) consideration, (3) an unambiguous 

### offer and acceptance, and 

### (4) actual 

### authority on the part 

### ofthe govemment's representative 

### to bind the government 

### in contract" (quoting Hanlin v. United States,316 

### F.3d 1325,1328 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2003))). 

### Mr. O'Diah's allegations also do not describe any 

### oftheterms 

### of the purported contract. 

### Accordingly, Mr. O'Diah has 

### failedto establish a basis 

### for this Court to exercise

### jurisdiction pursuant 

### to its 

### authority to entertain claims based on the breach

### ofan express or 

### implied contract 

### with the 

### United States. See

### Kroll v. 

### Finne4v,242 F.3d 1359,1362 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2001) 

### C'A court must dismiss a

### complaint 

### for lack

### ofsubject matter

### jurisdiction when the alleged basis 

### for exercising federal 

### jurisdiction is 

### 'so attenuated and unsubstantial as

### to be absolutely devoid 

### of 

### merit."' (quoting Hagans 

### v. Lavine, 415 

### U.S. 528, 

### 536-37 (1974))); Trauma



## 'In his 

### complaint, 

### citing RCFC 59 and 60, 

### Mr. O'Diah also appears

### to ask

### for reconsideration 

### ofthis Court's 

### March 14,2016 

### Opinion and Order dismissing his 

### prior three complaints. 

### But those rules 

### allow aparty 

### to request a new

### trial or reconsideration 

### of the 

### Court's decision 

### by

### filing a 

### motion in the case

### for which such new

### trial or reconsideration is sought, not through a

### collateral attack 

### in some new case.



### 4Serv. Grp. v. 

### United States. 104 

### F.3d

# ll2l, 1325 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1997) 

### (rcquiring a

### 'lvellpleade.d 

### allegatiod' of an express 

### contact 

### 'to overcome challenges to

### jurisdiction").

CONCLUSION

For the reasons disoussed above, the government's 

### motion to dismiss is hereby 

### GRANTED and 

### Mr. O'Diab's complaint is 

### DISMISSED without prejudice. The 

### Clerk is directed

### to enter

### judgnent aocordingly.


### IT IS SO 

### ORDEREI}. 

# c-lu-'

ELAINED. KAPLAN Judge