ORIGINAL 

Jrn tbt Wnittb ~tatts Q.Court of jf tbtral Q.Claims 

No. 16-1 lOC 

(Filed: August 19, 2016) 

FILED 

AUG I 9 2016 

U.S. COURT OF 

************************************* 

LORD NOBLE KATO BAKARI EL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE UNITED STATES, 

Defendant. 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

************************************* 

Lord Noble Kato Bakari El, Mesa, AZ, pro se. 

. . . A 1. . FEOPERAL CLAIMS Motion to Dismiss; pp icat10n to roceea 

In F orma Pauperis; Pro Se Plaintiff; 

Collateral Attack of State Court Judgment; 

Fraud; Mistake; Conspiracy; Trespass; 

Fifth Amendment Taking; Lack of 

Jurisdiction 

Jessica L. Cole, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

SWEENEY, Judge 

Before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs prose complaint for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 

pursuant to Rules 12(b)(l) and 12(b)(6), respectively, of the Rules of the United States Court of 

Federal Claims ("RCFC"). In addition, plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. Plaintiff alleges that the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County ("Superior 

Court of Arizona") unlawfully entered a judgment of forcible detainer against him for illegally 

occupying private property and ordered him to vacate that property. Although plaintiffs 

application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the court possesses no jurisdiction to hear 

plaintiffs claims. Accordingly, the court must dismiss his complaint. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Lord Noble Kato Bakari El alleges that he is the legal heir of the estate of his 

wife, Wilma Jean Ford, in Maricopa County, Arizona. The property at issue is located at 1502 

South Lee Circle, Mesa, Arizona 85204. Previously, Carrington Property Services, LLC brought 

an action for forcible detainer in the Superior Court of Arizona against plaintiff and his wife, 

seeking their removal from that property. On December 3, 2015, Commissioner James Morrow 

of the Superior Court of Arizona entered a judgment against the defendants in that case for 

forcible detainer, ordering them to vacate the property by January 2, 2016; if they did not, the 

court stated, a Writ of Resolution would be issued. In addition, the defendants were ordered to 

pay the plaintiff$539 in costs and $125 in attorney's fees. 

USPS TRACKING#: 

&CUSTOMER 

RECEIPT 

9114 9999 4431 3548 1336 64 

For Tracking or inqUiries go to USPS.com 

or call 1·800-222· 1811. 
On January 21, 2016, plaintiff filed suit in this court, alleging that the Superior Court of 

Arizona failed to recognize that he owns the subject property pursuant to a deed and a land 

patent. According to plaintiff, the property "passed to [him] by way of grant deed recorded ... 

in the Maricopa County Recorder's Office." Comp!. 7. Plaintiff asserts that he is in possession 

of the original land patent of the property at issue. Consequently, plaintiff contends, the Superior 

Court of Arizona "failed to recognize ... the Defendants['] Grant deed that was executed on 

April/28/15 before the allege[d] trustee sale on July/02/15." Id. at 10. Plaintiff argues that the 

court's judgment was unlawful-asserting claims of fraud, mistake, trespass, conspiracy, 

unauthorized administration of property without right, and "diversity"-and seeks $1.75 million 

in damages. Id. at 8. In addition, plaintiff requests that this court render the Superior Court of 

Arizona's decision "void" for "fraud[,] mistake[,] and surprise." Id. 

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint pursuant to RCFC 

12(b)(l) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and RCFC 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted.' The motion is fully briefed, and the court deems oral 

argument unnecessary. 

II. LEGAL ST AND ARDS 

A. Tucker Act 

The ability of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("Court of Federal Claims") to 

entertain suits against the United States is limited. "The United States, as sovereign, is immune 

from suit save as it consents to be sued." United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). 

A waiver of immunity "cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed." United States 

v. King. 395 U.S. 1, 4 (1969). The Tucker Act, the principal statute governing the jurisdiction of 

this court, waives sovereign immunity for claims against the United States not sounding in tort 

that are founded upon the United States Constitution, a federal statute or regulation, or an 

express or implied contract with the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 149l(a)(l) (2012). However, the 

Tucker Act is merely a jurisdictional statute and "does not create any substantive right 

enforceable against the United States for money damages." United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 

392, 398 (1976). Instead, the substantive right must appear in another source of law, such as a 

"money-mandating constitutional provision, statute or regulation that has been violated, or an 

express or implied contract with the United States." Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States, 27 

F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en bane). 

B. RCFC 12(b)(l) Motion to Dismiss 

Whether the court has jurisdiction to decide the merits of a case is a threshold matter. 

See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). "Without jurisdiction the 

court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it 

ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and 

dismissing the cause." Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514 (1868). The parties, or 

1 Because the court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims, it does not 

address defendant's RCFC 12(b)(6) motion. 

-2-
the court, sua sponte, may challenge the existence of subject matter jurisdiction at any time. 

Arbaugh v. Y &H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006). 

When considering whether to dismiss a complaint for lack of jurisdiction, a court 

assumes that the allegations in the complaint are true and construes those allegations in the 

plaintiffs favor. Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 797 (Fed. Cir. 1995). A prose plaintiffs 

complaint, "'however inartfully pleaded,' must be held to 'less stringent standards than formal 

pleadings drafted by lawyers' .... " Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 10 n.7 (1980) (quoting Haines 

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)). However, a prose plaintiff is not excused from 

meeting basic jurisdictional requirements. See Henke, 60 F.3d at 799 ("The fact that [the 

plaintiff] acted pro se in the drafting of his complaint may explain its ambiguities, but it does not 

excuse its failures, if such there be."). In other words, a pro se plaintiff is not excused from his 

burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the court possesses jurisdiction. See 

McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); Reynolds v. Army & Air 

Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The plaintiff cannot rely solely on 

allegations in the complaint, but must bring forth relevant, adequate proof to establish 

jurisdiction. See McNutt, 298 U.S. at 189. Ultimately, ifthe court finds that it lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction, then it must dismiss the claim. Matthews v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 274, 

278 (2006); see also RCFC 12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any time that it lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action."). 

III. DISCUSSION 

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that the Superior Court of Arizona's judgment was 

unlawful-asserting claims of fraud, mistake, surprise, trespass, conspiracy, unauthorized 

administration of property without right, and "diversity"-and requests that this court render that 

judgment void. Comp!. 8. The court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims. Consequently, 

plaintiffs complaint must be dismissed. 

A. The United States Is the Only Proper Defendant in the Court of Federal Claims 

Although the court has read the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it 

cannot locate any allegations that implicate the United States.' Plaintiff instead challenges the 

decision of a state court, but this court does not possess jurisdiction to entertain claims against 

state courts or state officials. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491; Sherwood, 312 U.S. at 588 (concluding that 

jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims "is confined to the rendition of money judgments in 

suits brought for that relief against the United States, and if the relief sought is against others 

than the United States the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court" 

(citations omitted)); accord Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App'x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 

(unpublished decision) (affirming the trial court's decision that it did not possess jurisdiction 

over claims against "states, localities, state and local government officials, state courts, state 

prisons, or state employees"); see also Jefferson v. United States, 104 Fed. CL 81, 89 (2012) 

2 Plaintiff alleges that his land patent is registered with the Bureau of Land Management 

of the United States Department of the Interior, but he does not allege any claims against this or 

any other federal agency. 

-3-
(stating that the court lacks jurisdiction over claims against state agencies and private 

individuals). 

B. The Court of Federal Claims Cannot Entertain a Collateral Attack Against the 

Judgment of Another Court 

Further, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of state courts. As explained 

by the United States Supreme Court: 

Congress has prescribed a primary route, by appeal as of right and certiorari, 

through which parties may seek relief from the legal consequences of judicial 

judgments. To allow a party who steps off the statutory path to employ ... [a] 

collateral attack on the judgment would-quite apart from any considerations of 

fairness to the parties-disturb the orderly operation of the federal judicial system. 

U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship. 513 U.S. 18, 27 (1994); accord Vereda, Ltda. v. 

United States, 217 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("[T]he Court of Federal Claims cannot 

entertain a taking claim that requires the court to 'scrutinize the actions of another tribunal." 

(quoting Allustiarte v. United States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001))); Joshua v. United 

States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("[T]he Court of Federal Claims does not have 

jurisdiction to review the decisions of district courts ... relating to proceedings before those 

courts."). 

C. Even if Plaintiff Alleged Claims Against the United States, the Court Lacks Jurisdiction 

to Entertain Them 

Moreover, to the extent that plaintiff alleges claims against the United States rather than 

the Superior Court of Arizona, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain them. First, plaintiffs 

claims that the government acted unlawfully due to fraud, mistake, conspiracy, trespass, or other 

wrongful conduct sound in tort. Jumah v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 603, 607-08 (2009) (stating 

that claims of trespass or conspiracy sound in tort); Cottrell v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 144, 

149 (1998) (holding that claims "that defendant engaged in negligent, fraudulent, or other 

wrongful conduct when discharging its official duties" sound in tort). It is well settled that the 

Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over tort claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a) ("The 

United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim 

against the United States ... in cases not sounding in tort."); Rick's Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. 

United States, 521F.3d1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Woodruffv. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 806, 

816 (2008); McCauley v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 250, 264 (1997) (''Jurisdiction to hear tort 

claims is exclusively granted to the United States District Courts under the Federal Tort Claims 

Act."), affd, 152 F.3d 948 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

Second, plaintiffs reliance on Article VI of the United States Constitution in support of his 

claims is misplaced. Article VI provides: 

-4-
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this 

Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as 

under the Confederation. 

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in 

pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority 

of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every 

state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the 

contrary notwithstanding. 

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several 

state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States 

and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this 

Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any 

office or public trust under the United States. 

U.S. Const. art. VI. There is nothing in Article VI that indicates that it is money-mandating, and 

therefore, this court does not possess jurisdiction over claims that it was violated by the 

government. El v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 707, 709 (2015); accord Marshall v. United States, 

No. 09-431C, 2010 WL 125978, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 14, 2010) (unpublished decision). 

Third, plaintiff argues that the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous 

People provides a basis for the exercise of this court's jurisdiction. Plaintiff is mistaken. Under 

the Tucker Act, the court possesses jurisdiction to entertain claims founded upon the United 

States Constitution, federal statutes and regulations, and contracts with the United States. 28 

U.S.C. § 149l(a)(l). The Tucker Act does not provide the court with jurisdiction to entertain 

claims based upon United Nations declarations. Id.; see also id. § 1502 ("Except as otherwise 

provided by Act of Congress, the United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have 

jurisdiction of any claim against the United States growing out of or dependent upon any treaty 

entered into with foreign nations."); Prophet v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 456, 464 (2012) 

(holding that various declarations and conventions do not confer jurisdiction on the Court of 

Federal Claims because they "are not acts of the United States Congress, signed by the President 

of the United States"). Moreover, plaintiff has not referenced any statute providing this court 

with the authority to entertain claims under the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 

Fourth, plaintiff cites Article III of the Articles of Confederation, which recites: 

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each 

other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and 

general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, 

or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, 

trade, or any other pretense whatever. 

Articles of Confederation of 1781, art. III. However, because the Articles of Confederation were 

replaced by the United States Constitution in 1789, they are not a valid source of law. 

Nonetheless, even if they were, there is nothing in Article III indicating that it is moneymandating. The court therefore lacks jurisdiction over any claims that plaintiff alleges arises 

-5-

-----------· 
under Article III. See Kolakowski v. Sec'y of HHS, No. 99-0625V, 2010 WL 5672753, at *141 

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 23, 2010) (explaining that the Articles of Confederation were later 

replaced by the United States Constitution). 

Fifth, plaintiff references 43 U.S.C. § 59 and 43 U.S.C. § 83, which describe evidentiary 

rules governing copies of land records. However, these statutes do not require or even discuss 

payment for a violation. Consequently, the court possesses no jurisdiction over any claims 

brought pursuant to these statutes. 

Finally, to the extent that plaintiffs allegations may be construed as raising a Fifth 

Amendment takings claim, plaintiff fails to invoke this court's jurisdiction. The Fifth 

Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking private property for public use without 

paying just compensation. U.S. Const. amend. V. The Court of Federal Claims possesses 

jurisdiction to entertain Fifth Amendment takings claims against the United States. See Morris 

v. United States, 392 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("Absent an express statutory grant of 

jurisdiction to the contrary, the Tucker Act provides the Court of Federal Claims exclusive 

jurisdiction over takings claims for amounts greater than $10,000."). However, to bring suit in 

the Court of Federal Claims, a plaintiff"must concede the validity of the government action 

which is the basis of the taking claim .... " Tabb Lakes, Ltd. v. United States, 10 F.3d 796, 802-

03 (Fed. Cir. 1993); accord Reg'! Rail Reorg. Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 126-27 & n.16 (1974) 

("[T]he Government action must be authorized. 'The taking of private property by an officer of 

the United States for public use, without being authorized, expressly or by necessary implication, 

to do so by some act of Congress, is not the act of the government,' and hence recovery is not 

available in the Court of Claims." (quoting Hooe v. United States, 218 U.S. 322, 336 (1910))). 

Plaintiff alleges that he was unlawfully forced to vacate the property at issue by the Superior 

Court of Arizona. In other words, plaintiff does not concede the lawfulness of the state court 

action. Accordingly, the court cannot exercise its jurisdiction over any Fifth Amendment takings 

claim asserted by plaintiff. 3 

D. The Court Grants Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

Finally, as noted above, plaintiff filed, concurrent with his complaint, an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, courts of the United States are 

3 Even if the court could exercise jurisdiction over a Fifth Amendment takings claim 

asserted by plaintiff, plaintiff would not prevail on such a claim. To establish a Fifth 

Amendment taking, plaintiff would first be required to "identif{y] a cognizable Fifth Amendment 

property interest that is asserted to be the subject of the taking." Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. 

United States, 708 F.3d 1340, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013). "Property interests are created and defined 

by state law." Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 55 (1979). As a prerequisite to granting 

judgment in forcible detainer against plaintiff, the Superior Court of Arizona necessarily must 

have concluded that plaintiff did not have a valid property interest in the property at issue. Thus, 

the court's judgment could not constitute a Fifth Amendment taking. Cf. Vereda, Ltda, 217 F.3d 

at 1375 ("[T]he Court of Federal Claims cannot entertain a taking claim that requires the court to 

'scrutinize the actions of another tribunal." (quoting Allustiarte, 256 F.3d at 1352)). 

-6-
permitted to waive filing fees and security under certain circumstances.' See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(l); see also Hayes v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 366, 366-67 (2006) (concluding that 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(l) applies to both prisoners and nonprisoners alike). Plaintiffs wishing to 

proceed in forma pauperis must submit an affidavit that lists all of their assets, declares that they 

are unable to pay the fees or give the security, and states the nature of the action and their belief 

that they are entitled to redress. 28 U.S.C. § l 915(a)(l). Here, plaintiff has satisfied all three 

requirements. The court therefore grants plaintiffs application and waives his filing fee. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

In sum, the court GRANTS plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis, and 

DISMISSES plaintiffs complaint for lack of jurisdiction. No costs. The clerk is directed to 

enter judgment accordingly. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Judge 

4 While the Court of Federal Claims is not generally considered to be a "court of the 

United States" within the meaning of title twenty-eight of the United States Code, the court has 

jurisdiction to grant or deny applications to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 2503(d) 

(deeming the Court of Federal Claims to be "a court of the United States" for the purposes of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915); see also Matthews, 72 Fed. Cl. at 277-78 (recognizing that Congress enacted the 

Court of Federal Claims Technical and Procedural Improvements Act of 1992, authorizing the 

court to, among other things, adjudicate applications to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 

u.s.c. § 1915). 

-7-