NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

KENNETH LESLIE CALDWELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2024-1122

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:23-cv-00320-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Kenneth Leslie Caldwell appeals from the judgment of 

the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his 

complaint. The United States moves for summary affirmance. ECF No. 12. Mr. Caldwell opposes, submits his 

opening brief, and moves for various relief, including 

“emergency relief to be determined by [the] court,” ECF No. 

6 at 1; for expedited restitution of at least $80,000, ECF No. 

Case: 24-1122 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 02/05/2024
2 CALDWELL v. US

8-1 at 3; summary judgment, ECF No. 10-1; and 

“$1,000,000 as a permanent injunction,” ECF No. 17-1 at 2. 

Mr. Caldwell previously sued the Judicial Administration of Idaho and Idaho-based media companies in Idaho 

state court. After that suit was unsuccessful, he filed the 

underlying complaint at the Court of Federal Claims, alleging the Judicial Administration of Idaho as well as other

state and federal officials and entities violated various 

laws, including provisions of U.S. Code title 18 (criminal 

code); U.S. Code title 42 (civil rights); 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–254; 

the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and antitrust 

laws. Mr. Caldwell also requested that the Court of Federal Claims compel the Patent and Trademark Office to 

grant him intellectual property rights to 28 “ideas” he identified in his complaint. The Court of Federal Claims 

granted the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint. 

This appeal followed. 

The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, limits the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims to claims for money 

damages against the United States based on sources of substantive law that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating 

compensation by the Federal Government.” United States 

v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) (citation omitted). For the reasons explained in the Court of Federal 

Claims’s Opinion and Order, none of the sources of law 

identified in the complaint were shown to create a right to 

monetary damages against the United States.* And while

* Although the complaint generally referenced the 

Fifth Amendment, the Court of Federal Claims correctly 

explained that Mr. Caldwell did not allege any taking of 

property that could plausibly support a claim under the 

Takings Clause and the trial court lacks jurisdiction over 

any alleged violation of the Due Process Clause. See LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 

Case: 24-1122 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 02/05/2024
CALDWELL v. US 3

28 U.S.C. § 1498 authorizes the trial court to award damages for the use or manufacture of a covered patent or copyright by or on behalf of the United States, Mr. Caldwell’s 

complaint failed to identify any issued patent or copyright

to support such a claim. 

We have considered Mr. Caldwell’s arguments in his 

brief, but find they fail to a raise a non-frivolous basis for 

error. Accordingly, summary affirmance is appropriate 

here because there is no “substantial question regarding 

the outcome” of the appeal. Joshua v. United States, 17 

F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The United States’s motion for summary affirmance is granted, and the judgment of the United States 

Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.

(2) All other motions are denied.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

February 5, 2024 

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 

 

Case: 24-1122 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 02/05/2024