Court Opinion

ID: 9385555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 14:00:46.441712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:02.831339
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1407      Document: 29    Page: 1   Filed: 04/07/2023

          NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                    ______________________

                ALPHONSO V. FRAZIER, II,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                              v.

                      UNITED STATES,
                      Defendant-Appellee
                    ______________________

                          2022-1407
                    ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:21-cv-02266-MMS, Senior Judge Margaret M.
 Sweeney.
                 ______________________

                    Decided: April 7, 2023
                    ______________________

       ALPHONSO V. FRAZIER, II, Omaha, NE, pro se.

     DAVID MICHAEL KERR, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.

       PHYLLIS M. KNIGHT, Wichita, KS, as amicus curiae, pro
 se.
Case: 22-1407    Document: 29      Page: 2    Filed: 04/07/2023

 2                                              FRAZIER   v. US

                   ______________________

 PER CURIAM.
     Alphonso V. Frazier II appeals from the dismissal of his
 complaint by the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”).
 Because the Claims Court properly determined that it
 lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Frazier’s
 claims, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     Mr. Frazier previously filed a complaint in the U.S.
 District Court for the District of Nebraska to remove a
 state criminal case to federal court. The district court dis-
 missed Mr. Frazier’s complaint, and the Eighth Circuit af-
 firmed. S.A. 1. 1 Mr. Frazier also filed a “Notice of
 Constitutional Question” related to that complaint in the
 district court. S.A. 2.
     Mr. Frazier then filed the complaint at issue in this
 case. At the Claims Court, Mr. Frazier alleged that the
 clerk of the district court violated 28 U.S.C. §§ 951 and
 2403, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Due
 Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
 when the clerk failed to “certify” the constitutional ques-
 tion from his notice to the U.S. Attorney General. S.A. 2,
 4. Mr. Frazier asserted that the Claims Court had juris-
 diction over these claims under the Tucker Act. S.A. 3. The
 Claims Court dismissed Mr. Frazier’s complaint for lack of
 subject matter jurisdiction since none of Mr. Frazier’s
 claims arose from money-mandating provisions, which
 Tucker Act jurisdiction requires. S.A. 3.

     1   We cite to the supplemental appendix attached to
 appellee’s brief as “S.A.”
Case: 22-1407      Document: 29   Page: 3    Filed: 04/07/2023

 FRAZIER   v. US                                           3

    Mr. Frazier appeals, and we have jurisdiction under
 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
                         DISCUSSION
     We review the Claims Court’s dismissal for lack of sub-
 ject matter jurisdiction without deference. Shearin v.
 United States, 992 F.2d 1195, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For
 the Claims Court to have subject matter jurisdiction under
 the Tucker Act, Mr. Frazier needed to “demonstrate that
 the source of substantive law he relies upon can fairly be
 interpreted as mandating compensation by the federal gov-
 ernment for the damages sustained.” United States v.
 Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216–17 (1983) (cleaned up); see
 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
     As the Claims Court correctly noted, none of the
 sources of law that Mr. Frazier relies on for his claims are
 money-mandating. Section 951 requires clerks of court to
 take an oath; it does not mandate any payment by the fed-
 eral government. Id. § 951. Likewise, section 2403 does
 not contain a money-mandating provision; it allows federal
 and state governments to intervene in actions affecting fed-
 eral or state statutes. Id. § 2403. The Federal Rules of
 Civil Procedure also do not require compensation by the
 federal government.       See Bobka v. United States,
 133 Fed. Cl. 405, 411–12 (2017). And we have previously
 held that the Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution
 are not money-mandating. LeBlanc v. United States,
 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
     Since the sources of Mr. Frazier’s claims are not
 money-mandating, the Claims Court properly concluded
 that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over those claims
 under the Tucker Act and dismissed the complaint.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered Mr. Frazier’s remaining argu-
 ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
 sons, we affirm.
Case: 22-1407   Document: 29    Page: 4   Filed: 04/07/2023

 4                                          FRAZIER   v. US

                     AFFIRMED
                        COSTS
 No costs.