NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# ijliniteb**~tate1l** 

# <!Courtof**~peaI1l** 

# fortbejf

# eberaI<!Circuit

DANNYCHOI, Plaintiff-Appellant,



### v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

2012-5111

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in case no. 12-CV-182, Judge Susan G. Braden.



### ONMOTION

PER CURIAM. 

### ORDER Danny Choi moves for reconsideration ofthis court's July 12, 2012 order denying his motion to expedite the appeal. Choi also moves to strike the government's informal brief and appendix. This court considers whether the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims shouldbe summarily affirmed. Case: 12-5111 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 09/20/2012DANNY CHOIV. US 2

On March 19, 2012, Mr. Choi filed the underlying complaint in the Court of Federal Claims, naming the United States and the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC) as defendants. In the complaint, Mr. Choi alleged that as a student at UCSC he experienced several difficulties with the university's faculty and administration. Specifically, Mr. Choi alleged that he has been unjustly graded by some of his professors and that his ability to find employment had been hindered by an error in the university's email system that prevented him from accessing a number of received email messages. As a result of what his complaint characterized as UCSC's "negligence" and "product liability," Mr. Choi sought $141,000 in lostwages andincurred debt. On June 28, 2012, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint. The court explained that because its jurisdiction was limited to money-mandating claims against the United States government, the court lacked authority to address a complaint premised entirely on alleged wrongdoing by a state university. Rejecting Mr. Choi's arguments that UCSC was an agent ofthe United States government because "UCSC is a part ofthe California State Government and the State is a part ofthe United States Government," the court explained that the California state and federal government each have their
own sovereign immunity and that "California does not act as an agent ofthe United States when creating, maintaining, and running state-sponsored universities." In addition, the court explained that even presuming the action
was brought against the United States government here, the Court ofFederal Claims does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate cases sounding intort. This appeal followed. Case: 12-5111 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 09/20/20123 ----**.~.~-------~**

DANNY OHOIv. US

Mr. Choi's informal briefdoes not present any cogent argument establishing jurisdiction over his complaint in the Court ofFederal Claims. The only specific argument thatMr. Choi appears to raise is that the trial court erred because "[c]riminal law should apply." That argument was rejected by this court in Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). There, we explained that the Court ofFederal Claims "has nojurisdictionto adjudicate any claims whatsoever under the federal criminal code[.]" Id. at 379. In summarily disposing ofthe appeal in Joshua, we stated that the position ofthe government in arguing that the Court ofFederal Claims lackedjurisdiction was "so clearly correct as a matter oflaw that no substantial question regarding the outcome ofthe appeal exists." Id. at 380. So too here, summary affirmance of thejudgment ofthe Court ofFederal Claims in dismissing Mr. Choi's complaintis appropriate. Accordingly, ITIs ORDEREDTHAT: (1) The judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is summarily affirmed. (2) Allpending motions are dismissed. (3) Each side shallbearits owncosts.

FORTHE COURT 

## SEP 20 

## 2012 Date /s/Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk



## u.s**eotJL'F'l~PEALS** 

## FOR THeFEDERAl.CIRCUIT 

## SEP 20 ZulZ JANHORBAlY CLERK Case: 12-5111 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 09/20/2012DANNY CHOI V. US

cc: Danny Choi Douglas T. Hoffman, Esq. 

### s25 4 Case: 12-5111 Document: 14 Page: 4 Filed: 09/20/2012