Zakiya v. United States ( 2008 )

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-5026
JABARI ZAKIYA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
Jabari Zakiya, of Washington, DC, pro se.
Michael J. Dierberg, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on
the brief were Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne E.
Davidson, Director; and Brian M. Simkin, Assistant Director.
Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims
Judge Emily C. Hewitt
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-5026
JABARI ZAKIYA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 07-CV-323, Judge Emily C.
Hewitt.
___________________________
DECIDED: May 6, 2008
___________________________
Before RADER, DYK, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-Appellant Jabari Zakiya appeals from an order of the Court of Federal
Claims dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, his suit against the United
States for money damages for unjust imprisonment. Because we conclude that Zakiya
did not file his claim within the six-year statute of limitations, which constitutes a
jurisdictional limitation, the determination of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
Zakiya was convicted of tax evasion and failing to file income tax returns in the
District Court for the District of Maryland, and, on February 18, 1994, was sentenced by
that court to imprisonment for a term of sixteen months, in addition to a three-year
period of supervised release, a fine of $25,000, and a special assessment. Based on
the date upon which Zakiya self-reported to serve his sentence, the term of
imprisonment under his sentence ended on May 5, 1996, and his administrative release
date with full good time credit was more than two months earlier, on February 29, 1996.
Zakiya was not released as of February 29, 1996, however, because he refused to sign
an agreement to pay the fine imposed as part of his sentence, as required as a
condition of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e). Because he continued
to refuse to sign the agreement, Zakiya remained confined beyond the end of his
sentence of imprisonment in May 1996.
Zakiya brought a series of petitions seeking writs of habeas corpus and
mandamus from various courts. Ultimately, on May 4, 1999, the District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia granted Zakiya a writ of habeas corpus and directed the
Federal Bureau of Prisons to release Zakiya forthwith. Zakiya v. Reno, 52 F. Supp. 2d
629, 638 (E.D. Va. 1999). The district court determined that Zakiya’s petition was
properly characterized as asserting a challenge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as to the
legality of his detention after the expiration of his sentence, rather than a challenge to
the legality of his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2224 or 2225. The
district court reasoned that section 3624(e) could not, consistent with the Constitution,
be interpreted to allow the executive branch (that is, the Bureau of Prisons) to detain
Zakiya beyond the end of the judicially imposed sentence of incarceration, citing
concerns as to separation of powers. Pursuant to the district court’s order, Zakiya
alleges that he was released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons on May 5, 1999.
Zakiya initiated the present action on May 24, 2007, by filing a complaint in the
Court of Federal Claims seeking money damages for his detention between February
29, 1996, and May 5, 1999. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Zakiya’s complaint
2008-5026 2
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that it suffered from two fatal
jurisdictional defects. First, the Court of Federal Claims concluded that Zakiya’s
complaint was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2501, which
provides that any claim otherwise within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims
must be “filed within six years after such claim first accrues.” The Court of Federal
Claims concluded that Zakiya’s complaint was filed more than six years after his release
from incarceration, which the court determined was the last possible date upon which
his claim could have accrued.
Second, the Court of Federal Claims concluded that it also lacked jurisdiction
because Zakiya had failed to make the minimum factual allegations necessary to invoke
the Court of Federal Claims’s jurisdiction pursuant to the two statutory provisions
authorizing a claim for money damages for unjust imprisonment, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1495 and
2513. The court concluded that Zakiya had not alleged, and could not allege, that his
conviction had been reversed or set aside because he was not guilty or because he was
innocent and unjustly convicted.
Zakiya timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(3).
DISCUSSION
We conclude that Zakiya’s claim is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2501 because it was
filed more than six years after Zakiya was released from incarceration. As the Supreme
Court’s recent opinion in John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 750(2008), explained, section 2501 imposes a jurisdictional requirement. Id. at 753-54.
Despite Zakiya’s contrary argument, the Court of Federal Claims was obligated to
2008-5026 3
address the limitations issue sua sponte, even though the issue was not raised by the
government. Id. at 752.
Zakiya also argues that the Court of Federal Claims failed to offer him an
adequate opportunity to respond to the statute of limitations issue before dismissing his
complaint sua sponte, and that if afforded a greater opportunity to respond, he would
have established that he would be entitled to equitable tolling because he “had pursued
timely civil litigation in the federal courts . . . [and] was barred from simultaneously
pursuing a claim under 2513.” Appellant’s Reply to Appellee’s Informal Br. at 2 ∗
Although delay caused by a defective filing in another court has often been recognized
as a proper ground for equitable tolling of a limitations period, even as against the
United States, in other contexts, see, e.g., Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498
U.S. 89, 95-96, it is now clearly established that the limitations period imposed by
section 2501 is jurisdictional, making equitable tolling unavailable as a matter of law.
See John R. Sand & Gravel Co., 128 S. Ct. at 753-53. Accordingly, Zakiya could not
have prevailed on equitable tolling regardless of any evidence of ongoing civil litigation
that he might have produced. We conclude that Zakiya’s claim is time-barred, and we
need not reach the Court of Federal Claims’s alternative ground for dismissal.
For this reason, the determination of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.
No costs.
∗
It appears that in this regard, Zakiya is referring to an action he filed
against the United States and a series of individual defendants seeking money
damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act and under the theory of Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for his
allegedly improper confinement. The last of these claims were dismissed by the District
Court for the Northern District of West Virginia in 2005, Zakiya v. United States, No.
CIV A 1:04CV38 (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 18, 2005).
2008-5026 4