Case: 22-1968 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 08/31/2022
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`DAVID LEE SMITH, individually and in his capac-
`ity as Legal Representative of The Estate of Mary
`Julia Hook,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2022-1968
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
`in No. 1:22-cv-00052-AOB, Judge Armando O. Bonilla.
`______________________
`
`ON MOTION
`______________________
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`O R D E R
` David Lee Smith moves for leave to proceed in forma
`pauperis. After consideration of the complaint, the judg-
`ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims, and Mr.
`Smith’s opening brief, we dismiss the appeal.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1968 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 08/31/2022
`
`2
`
`
`
`SMITH v. US
`
`In 2019, the United States District Court for the Dis-
`
`trict of Colorado entered an order of foreclosure and judi-
`cial sale of Mr. Smith’s home. After unsuccessfully
`exhausting his appeals in that matter, Mr. Smith filed this
`suit on his own behalf and as the representative of his de-
`ceased wife’s estate at the Court of Federal Claims assert-
`ing an unlawful judicial taking of property in violation of
`the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The com-
`plaint alleged that the district court failed to comply with
`all necessary procedures, including failing to set off
`amounts owed, failing to determine the proper amount of
`federal taxes owed, and failing to distribute tax exemp-
`tions. The Court of Federal Claims granted Mr. Smith’s
`motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dis-
`missed for lack of jurisdiction, certifying under 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good
`faith. Mr. Smith now appeals, seeking in his brief for this
`court to “declare the judgments and orders of . . . the Dis-
`trict of Colorado and . . . the Tenth Circuit void . . . because
`of the jurisdictional defects and due process violations in
`those courts.” ECF No. 5-1 at 3.
`Given Mr. Smith’s motion and the § 1915(a)(3) certifi-
`cation, it is appropriate to assess whether Mr. Smith’s ap-
`peal complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), which
`provides “the court shall dismiss . . . if the court deter-
`mines that . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous.” It is
`well settled that the Court of Federal Claims “cannot en-
`tertain a taking[s] claim that requires the court to ‘scruti-
`nize the actions of’ another tribunal.’” Innovair Aviation
`Ltd. v. United States, 632 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`(citation omitted, alteration in the original); Petro-Hunt,
`L.L.C. v. United States, 862 F.3d 1370, 1385 (Fed. Cir.
`2017); Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United States, 782 F.3d
`1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mr. Smith has raised no co-
`gent, non-frivolous argument on appeal for why the Court
`of Federal Claims would have jurisdiction over his com-
`plaint that, at bottom, challenges the district court’s
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1968 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 08/31/2022
`
`SMITH v. US
`
` 3
`
`rulings in his foreclosure case through collateral proceed-
`ings. We therefore dismiss this appeal as frivolous.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`(1) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
`is denied.
`
`(2) The appeal is dismissed.
`
`(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
` August 31, 2022
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
` Date
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`