case law update

Court of Federal Claims Cannot Overturn a Criminal Conviction

To the extent a plaintiff attempts to use a suit to challenge his criminal conviction in the Court of Federal Claims, that court lacks jurisdiction to hear it, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held.

In 2012, an Immigration Court judge granted Mohammed Ahmed Hassan Omran a voluntary departure from the United States. But Mr. Omran did not depart and he was later arrested and convicted for failing to depart the United States in district court.

Claiming his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when he was denied the right to call witnesses in his own defense at trial before the district court, Mr. Omran filed a complaint with the Court of Federal Claims. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Omran’s suit for lack of jurisdiction, and Mr. Omran appealed to the Federal Circuit.

On appeal, Mr. Omran argued that the Tucker Act provided jurisdiction for the Court of Federal Claims to hear his suit, because his suit arose under the Constitution. But as the Federal Circuit noted in its opinion, the Tucker Act does not create causes of action or a right to monetary relief. To invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, a claim must be one that is created by a provision allowing recovery of monetary damages, and the Sixth Amendment does not itself create a right to recover money damages.

Even if Mr. Omran’s claim was considered as a monetary claim based on unjust conviction, the Federal Circuit held, Mr. Omran’s appeal fails because he did not plead or show that his conviction had been reversed or set aside on the ground that he is not guilty of the offense of which he was convicted. In short, Mr. Omran was required to get his conviction overturned elsewhere before he could bring a monetary claim in the Court of Federal Claims for wrongful conviction.

The Federal Circuit thus denied Mr. Omran’s appeal and affirmed the Court of Federal Claims dismissal of his suit.

Read the full case: Omran v. United States

This case law update was written by James P. Garay Heelan, associate attorney, Shaw Bransford & Roth, PC.

For thirty years, Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C. has provided superior representation on a wide range of federal employment law issues, from representing federal employees nationwide in administrative investigations, disciplinary and performance actions, and Bivens lawsuits, to handling security clearance adjudications and employment discrimination cases.

Posted in Case Law Update

Tags: case law update, michael s causey


This Week on FEDtalk

Navigating Plans for Summer with the National Park Service

Do you know what you are doing this summer? To find out what our National Parks have to offer, tune in to FEDtalk this Friday and start planning your trip!

Read more ...

Hear it from FLEOA

FLEOA Highlights Important Policy, People During Police Week

The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) is continually committed to serving our members and the federal law enforcement community. This Police Week, FLEOA has dedicated special time and attention to pushing policy that helps the law enforcement community protect and serve their community. From events highlighting the importance of police to meetings on the Hill, FLEOA is excited to engage the public and policy makers on law enforcement issues during this time of heightened awareness.

Read more ...

The free weekly e-report for Federal Law Enforcement

Get in touch with us

Email FEDagent publisher

Copyright 2019
Hosted by Peak Media Company, LLC