NOTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ In re : SAMUEL J. MAY, Petitioner

______________________
2023

- 151

______________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:21

- cv

- 01496

- CNL, Judge Carolyn N. Lerner
, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in No. 1:17

- cv

- 00637

- RM, Judge Raymond P. Moore, and the United States District C ourt for the Northern District of California in No. 3:10

- cv

- 02577

- WHA, Judge William H. Alsup.

______________________ ON PETITION AND MOTION

______________________
P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R Samuel J. May petition s this court for a writ of mandamus directing the Attorney General to pay a percentage of a settlement agreement reached between the United States and Amgen , Inc. (Mr. May’s former employer) arising out of the misbranding of certain drugs

. The history of Mr. May’s decades

- long effort to obtain a share of the settlement are detailed in May v. United Case: 23-151 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 12/14/2023IN RE : MAY 2

States
, 2023

- 1124 (Fed. Cir. June 6, 2023). Briefly, after

an unsuccessful False Claims Act action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1 and unsuccessful contract and tort action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
, 2 Mr. May filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims
, asserting that the government’s failure to pay him a share of the Amgen Settlement was a breach of contract and a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights . The Court of Federal Claims dismissed his complaint
, and this court affirmed that judgment in June 2023

. To establish entitlement to the “extraordinar y remedy” of a writ of mandamus, a petitioner is required to show
, among other things, that he has a clear and indisputable right to relief. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C ., 542 U.S. 367, 380

– 81 (2004). Mr. May’s petition here seeks to relitigate his p rior actions , but he has not shown a clear and indisputable right to do so

. As we have already explained to Mr. May, t his court do es not have authority to review the judgments of the district co urts in his prior actions. May v. United States , Appeal No. 2023

- 2311, ECF No. 14(Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2023) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction); May v. United States , Appeal No. 2023

- 2334, ECF No. 9 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2023) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction). And mandamus is not intended to afford Mr. May

a second bite of the appellate apple in seeking review of the

1 See United States ex rel. May v. Amgen Inc. , No. 3:10

- cv

- 02577

- WHA (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2016) (denying the motion to reopen) ; May v. Amgen , No. 16

- 16394 (9th Cir. Mar. 2, 2017) (dismissing Mr. May’s appeal from the denial).

2 United States ex rel. May v. United States , 839 F. App’x 214 (10th Cir. 2020) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a contract claim and grant of summary judgment against tort claims). Case: 23-151 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 12/14/2023IN RE : MAY 3

judgment of the Court of Federal Claims

. Cf. Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n , 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943) (explaining that mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal)

. Indeed, this court has already rejected Mr. May’s materially similar requested relief

. May v. United States , Appeal No. 2023

- 1124, ECF No. 49 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2023) (en banc) (denying mandamus petition). Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The petition and all pending motions are denied.

December 14 , 2023 Date F OR THE C OURT Case: 23-151 Document: 8 Page: 3 Filed: 12/14/2023