Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05102/USCOURTS-ca13-14-05102-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Wayne Johnson
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

R. WAYNE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-5102

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:14-cv-00294-NBF, Senior Judge Eric G. 

Bruggink.

______________________ 

Decided: January 13, 2015

______________________ 

R. WAYNE JOHNSON, of Amarillo, Texas, pro se. 

CHRISTOPHER KEITH WIMBUSH, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States 

Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendantappellee. With him on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, 

Assistant Attorney General, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., 

Director, and STEVEN J. GILLINGHAM, Assistant Director. 

______________________ 

Case: 14-5102 Document: 15-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/13/2015
2 JOHNSON v. US

PER CURIAM. 

R. Wayne Johnson (“Johnson”) appeals from the 

decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (the 

“Claims Court”) denying his motion for a writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, an injunction. See Johnson v. 

United States, No. 14-294C (Fed. Cl. May 30, 2014) (“Order”). Because we find that the issues raised in this

appeal are moot, we dismiss. 

I 

Johnson is a prisoner at a Texas state correctional facility with an extensive history of filing frivolous complaints and appeals. See, e.g., Johnson v. Whatley, 73 F. 

App’x 79 (5th Cir. 2003) (finding four instances of Johnson

filing frivolous complaints or appeals).

In the appeal before us, Johnson filed a motion in the 

Claims Court for a writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, an injunction, prohibiting: (1) representatives of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs from engaging in the 

unauthorized practice of law relating to his claim for 

veterans disability benefits and (2) officials at the prison 

where he is incarcerated from unlawfully opening his 

mail. Johnson also questioned whether he is entitled to 

court-appointed counsel and whether the judge should 

recuse herself due to bias. The court denied Johnson’s 

motion because it lacked jurisdiction to grant any of the 

relief sought. Order at 1. Johnson appealed to this court.

II

After Johnson appealed to this court, he filed a Motion

for Summary Judgment in an earlier-filed case pending in

the Claims Court. In response, the court entered an order 

dismissing the complaint in that case without prejudice 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute provides that “a 

prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis may not bring a 

civil action in federal court if, while incarcerated, three or 

more of his actions or appeals were dismissed as frivolous 

Case: 14-5102 Document: 15-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/13/2015
JOHNSON v. US 3

or malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted.” See Johnson v. United States, No. 

14-294C (Fed. Cl. Aug. 5, 2014). The court found that 

Johnson, applying to proceed in forma pauperis, had farexceeded the “three-strike” limit prior to his filing in this 

case. Id. As a result, the court dismissed Johnson’s 

complaint without prejudice under § 1915(g), subject to 

reopening if he paid the filing fee within 30 days. Id. 

Johnson did not pay the filing fee. 

III

As a result of the intervening dismissal of the underlying complaint by the Claims Court, the government now 

moves to dismiss this appeal from the denial of the motion 

for a writ of mandamus as moot. It is that denial, rather 

than the § 1915(g) dismissal of Johnson’s basic complaint 

that is before us. The government argues that the issues 

on appeal cannot restore the complaint at the Claims 

Court, as the complaint was dismissed on entirely independent and controlling grounds after the current appeal 

was filed. 

We agree with the government that we do not have 

jurisdiction to hear this appeal, as the issues raised are 

moot. “[A]n appeal should . . . be dismissed as moot when, 

by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals 

cannot grant any effectual relief.” Calderon v. Moore, 518 

U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (citation and internal quotations 

omitted). After Johnson filed an appeal from the denial of 

his motion for a writ of mandamus, the Claims Court 

dismissed his complaint under § 1915(g) for having previously exceeded the statute’s “three-strike” limit. Thus, 

because the underlying complaint in this appeal was 

subsequently dismissed on both independent and controlling grounds, we have no basis for granting any effectual 

relief. See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969) 

(“Simply stated, a case is moot when the issues presented 

Case: 14-5102 Document: 15-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/13/2015
4 JOHNSON v. US

are no longer ‘live.’”) Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion and dismiss the appeal as moot.

DISMISSED

Case: 14-5102 Document: 15-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/13/2015