NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

______________________

PER CURIAM.

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 moves for “permission to file [a] . . . Motion for a Writ 

of Mandamus” with his opening brief, ECF No. 4, for “leave 

to serve the President 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: 03/07/2023
2 PATEL v. US

separately moves for summary affirmance. ECF No. 17. 

Mr. Patel opposes that 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 Presidents 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 Court of Federal Claims. ECF No. 17 at Appx74. In 

November 2022, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the 

complaint for failing to raise any non-frivolous allegation 

that would establish a claim within that court’s jurisdiction. In December 2022, that court denied reconsideration. 

This appeal followed.*

Summary affirmance is appropriate when the decision 

below “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 nonfrivolous 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 warning 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: 03/07/2023
PATEL v. US 3

has now had three appeals dismissed as clearly baseless, 

see 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 process

through frivolous appeal may result in sanctions. 

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(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

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 23-1325 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 03/07/2023