Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
May 10, 2022, Decided
Dr. Ahmad Aljindi appeals the final decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons below, we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.
On April 28, 2021, Dr. Aljindi filed a complaint pro se at the Court of Federal Claims. Dr. Aljindi sought $32.7 million in damages for employment discrimination in addition to relief for "intellectual property and copyright law violations, negligence, and tort." SAppx. 9.1 The Government moved to dismiss Dr. Aljindi's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
The Court of Federal Claims agreed with the Government and dismissed Dr. Aljindi's complaint. See Aljindi v. United States, 2021 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2200, No. 21-1295C, 2021 WL 4807205 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 15, 2021); SAppx. 1-3. The court interpreted Dr. Aljindi's complaint as alleging three [*2] claims: (1) employment discrimination; (2) theft of his intellectual property;2 and (3) negligence and tort based on the conduct described in his complaint for the first two claims. SAppx. 1. Additionally, after reviewing Dr. Aljindi's brief in response to the Government's motion to dismiss, the court noted that Dr. Aljindi's lawsuit was really focused on his allegations of "judicial misconduct" in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. SAppx. 2; see also SAppx. 8 (requesting the court "take formal notice of the ongoing judicial corruption, abuse, and torture in addition to [the Government's] abuse and torture"). The court thus considered those claims as well.
Regarding the first claim, employment discrimination, the trial court explained that the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over federal employment discrimination cases, i.e., it does not have the power to decide those cases. Rather, as the court explained, only federal district courts have jurisdiction over those claims. SAppx. 3 (quoting Taylor v. United States, 310 F. App'x 390, 393 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("Because Title VII vests jurisdiction over discrimination claims exclusively in the district court, [*3] the Court of Federal Claims cannot exercise jurisdiction over those claims.")).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 12530 *; 2022 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 445; 2022 WL 1464476
AHMAD ALJINDI, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee
Notice: THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING AND MODIFICATION. THE FINAL VERSION WILL APPEAR IN THE BOUND VOLUME OF THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
Prior History: [*1] Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:21-cv-01295-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.
Aljindi v. United States, 2021 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2200, 2021 WL 4807205 (Fed. Cl., Oct. 15, 2021)
Disposition: AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED.
intellectual property, trial court, district court, allegations, theft, discrimination claim, tort claim, employment discrimination, copyright infringement, factual allegations, judicial misconduct, lack jurisdiction, cases
Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Governments, Courts, Courts of Claims, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Federal Government, Claims By & Against, Jurisdiction, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction Over Actions, Torts, Procedural Matters, Commencement & Prosecution, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review