NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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 Court for 

the Northern District of California in No. 3:10-cv-02577-

WHA, Judge William H. Alsup.

______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Samuel J. May petitions 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: 12/14/2023
2 IN RE: MAY

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 California1 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 “extraordinary 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 prior actions, but he has not shown a clear and 

indisputable right to do so. As we have already explained 

to Mr. May, this court does not have authority to review 

the judgments of the district courts 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: 12/14/2023
IN 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,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The petition and all pending motions are denied.

December 14, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

Case: 23-151 Document: 8 Page: 3 Filed: 12/14/2023