NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CEDRIC GREENE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2023-1551

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:23-cv-00014-KCD, Judge Kathryn C. Davis.

______________________ 

Decided: August 16, 2023

______________________ 

CEDRIC GREENE, Los Angeles, CA, pro se. 

 DANIEL F. ROLAND, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________ 

Before CHEN, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

Case: 23-1551 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 08/16/2023
2 GREENE v. US

PER CURIAM. 

In January 2023, Mr. Greene filed a complaint in the 

United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) alleging the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California violated his First Amendment rights and 

committed slander by sending him mail that referred to 

him as a “Vexatious Litigant.” Appx. 21.1 The Claims 

Court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over 

the alleged First Amendment violations and tort claims 

and dismissed the complaint. Id. Mr. Greene subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration to vacate the 

judgment and amend his complaint, seeking to pursue a 

different claim, this time for breach of an implied contract 

by the United States government. Appx. 18–20. Specifically, it appears Mr. Greene claims he had an oral agreement with an unnamed employee at the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to transfer a case of 

his, but the Ninth Circuit instead remanded his case to district court. Appx. 22. The proposed amended complaint 

did not identify in what way the unnamed court employee 

had authority to bind the government in contract, let alone 

any of the other conditions for establishing an implied contract. See, e.g., Lewis v. United States, 70 F.3d 597, 600 

(Fed. Cir. 1995). The Claims Court denied his motion because it concluded Mr. Greene’s proposed amendment was 

futile. Appx. 22–23. Mr. Greene appealed the denial of his 

motion.2

We do not discern any abuse of the Claims Court’s discretion in denying Mr. Greene’s motion. See Renda 

1 “Appx.” citations are to the appendix filed concurrently with Appellee’s brief.

2 Mr. Greene also filed a motion we construe as a motion for change of venue. ECF No. 10. We deny his motion

but note Mr. Greene is free to file his complaint in another 

appropriate court. 

Case: 23-1551 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 08/16/2023
GREENE v. US 3

Marine, Inc. v. United States, 509 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. 

Cir. 2007) (explaining that both a motion for leave to 

amend a complaint and a motion for reconsideration are 

reviewed for abuse of discretion). We agree with the court 

(Appx. 22–23) that Mr. Greene’s motion failed to describe 

“a non-frivolous allegation of a contract with the government,” Engage Learning, Inc. v. Salazar, 660 F.3d 1346, 

1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis omitted), and that given

the insubstantial nature of Mr. Greene’s implied contract 

allegation, the amended complaint would have been futile, 

see Lewis, 70 F.3d at 603. Accordingly, the Claims Court 

did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Greene’s motion. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 23-1551 Document: 12 Page: 3 Filed: 08/16/2023