N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

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

______________________ RAJ K. PATEL, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1325

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:22

- cv

- 01446

- LAS, Senior Judge Loren A. Smith.

______________________
ON MOTION

______________________
P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R
Raj K. Patel appeals from the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint and subsequent order denying reconsideration . Mr. Patel also mo ves for “permission to file [a] .

. . Motion for a Writ of Mandamus” with his openi ng brief, ECF No. 4, for “ leave to serve the P resident directly,” ECF No. 12

- 1 at 1 , for leave to amend his motion for leave to serve the President , ECF No. 21 , and to expedite, ECF No. 25

. The United States Case: 23-1325 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 03/07/2023PATEL v. US 2

separately moves for summary affirmance. ECF N o. 17. Mr . Patel opposes th at motion

, the United States replies, and Mr. Patel submits a sur

- reply, which the court construes as including a motion for leave to file a sur

- reply, ECF No. 24.

Mr. Patel has filed several cases at tribunals within this court’s appellate jurisdiction alleging breach of a contract with the President s of the United States “about living under the stress weapon .” In October 2022, Mr. Patel filed his third complaint raising such allegations at the United States C ourt of Federal Claims

. ECF No. 1 7 at Appx74. I n November 2022, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint for failing to raise any non

- frivolous allegation that would establish a claim within th at court’s jurisdiction

. I n December 2022, that c ourt denied reconsideration. This appeal followed. *

S ummary affirmance is appropriate when the decisionbelow “is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.” Joshua v. United States

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

. Here, the Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that Mr. Patel’s complaint made no non

frivolous allegation of a contract with the United States that could form a basis for its jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). We therefore grant the motion to summarily affirm. We end by wa rn ing Mr. Patel, who

* The Court of Federal Claims’ judgment included an anti

- filing injunction provision. However, Mr. Patel does not challenge that provision in his brief and therefore forfeits any such challenge. See SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp ., 439 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ( “ [A]rguments not raised in the opening brief are waived. ” ) ; Green v. Dep’t of Educ. of N.Y. , 16 F.4th 1070, 1074 (2d Cir. 2021) (“[A] pro se litigant abandons an issue by failing to address it in the appellate brief .” )

. Case: 23-1325 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 03/07/2023PATEL v. US 3

has now had three appeals dismissed as clearly baseless,

s ee Patel v. White House Chief of Staff , No. 2022

- 1962, 2022 WL 3711886

, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2022); Patel v. United States , No. 2022

- 1131
, 2022 WL 4956868 , at *1 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2022)

, that future abuse of the judicial proce ss through frivolous appeal may result in sanctions.

Accor dingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The United States’ motion, ECF No. 17, is granted. The Court of Federal Claims’ judgment is affirmed.
(2) Mr. Patel’s motion for permission to file a petition for writ of mandamus, ECF No. 4, is denied.
(3) Mr. Patel’s motion to file a sur

- reply is granted. ECF No. 24 is accepted for filing.
(4) All other pending motions are denied as moot.
(5) Each side shall bear its own costs.

March 7 , 2023 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 23-1325 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 03/07/2023