Case: 22-2052 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 09/15/2022
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`ABDUL MOHAMMED,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2022-2052
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
`in No. 1:22-cv-00673-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.
`______________________
`
`ON MOTION
`______________________
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`O R D E R
` Abdul Mohammed moves for leave to proceed in forma
`pauperis (IFP). Having considered the complaint, the judg-
`ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims, and Mr.
`Mohammed’s corrected opening brief, we summarily af-
`firm.
` Mr. Mohammed filed a one-page complaint at the
`Court of Federal Claims seeking $1,000,000 for the “illegal
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2052 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 09/15/2022
`
`2
`
`
`
`MOHAMMED v. US
`
`seizure” of his “tort complaint pending with the General
`Counsel of the Administrative Office [“AO”] of the United
`States Courts” by the “refus[al] to investigate Plaintiff’s
`torts complaint [and] to give any update.” Compl. at 1. The
`Court of Federal Claims granted Mr. Mohammed IFP sta-
`tus and sua sponte dismissed for failure to state a claim
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Mr. Mohammed ap-
`peals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
`Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a court of the United
`States must dismiss an IFP action if the court determines
`that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be
`granted. Summary affirmance is appropriate when the de-
`cision below “is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no
`substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal
`exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir.
`1994). Here, the Court of Federal Claims was clearly cor-
`rect that Mr. Mohammed’s complaint, even liberally con-
`strued, failed to identify any source of law that obligated
`the AO to investigate his tort allegations, let alone any
`statute, regulation, or contract that mandated compensa-
`tion by the United States for failure to comply with the al-
`leged obligation. See United States v. Navajo Nation, 556
`U.S. 287, 290 (2009).
`Mr. Mohammed characterizes the AO’s refusal to take
`action on his submission as a taking of his right to file a
`claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). See Ap-
`pellant’s Br. at 4–5; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). But he
`makes no cogent, non-frivolous contention that the wrongs
`alleged afford Mr. Mohammed rights that can be vindi-
`cated at the Court of Federal Claims. In fact, Mr. Moham-
`med asserts that he can still bring an action under the
`FTCA if an “agency” “failed to issue a final decision within
`six months of the date that the claim was presented.” Ap-
`pellant’s Br. at 5.
`Additionally, Mr. Mohammed’s contention that the AO
`engaged in wrongful conduct in discharging official duties
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2052 Document: 12 Page: 3 Filed: 09/15/2022
`
`MOHAMMED v. US
`
` 3
`
`by failing to investigate and inform Mr. Mohammed about
`his claims clearly sounds in tort, such that the Court of
`Federal Claims could not grant him relief. See 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1491(a)(1) (no jurisdiction for claims arising in tort).
`
`Accordingly,
`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`(1) The motion is denied as moot. No fee payment is
`required for this appeal.
`
`(2) Mr. Mohammed’s corrected informal opening brief,
`ECF No. 10, is accepted for filing.
`(3) The judgment of the United States Court of Federal
`Claims is affirmed.
`
`(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
` September 15, 2022
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
` Date
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`