NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

ijliniteb ~tate1l <!Court of ~peaI1l

for tbe jfeberaI <!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.

ON MOTION

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Danny Choi moves for reconsideration of this 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 should be summarily affirmed.

Case: 12-5111 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 09/20/2012
DANNY CHOI V. 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 lost wages and incurred 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 of the United

States government because "UCSC is a part of the California State Government and the State is a part of the

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 of the 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 of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to

adjudicate cases sounding in tort.

This appeal followed.

Case: 12-5111 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 09/20/2012
3

----.~.~-------~

DANNY OHOI v. US

Mr. Choi's informal brief does not present any cogent

argument establishing jurisdiction over his complaint in

the Court of Federal Claims. The only specific argument

that Mr. 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 of Federal Claims "has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims whatsoever under the federal criminal

code[.]" Id. at 379. In summarily disposing of the appeal

in Joshua, we stated that the position of the government

in arguing that the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction was "so clearly correct as a matter of law that no

substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal

exists." Id. at 380. So too here, summary affirmance of

the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in dismissing

Mr. Choi's complaint is appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

(1) The judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is

summarily affirmed.

(2) All pending motions are dismissed.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

SEP 20 2012

Date

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

u.s eotJL'F'l~PEALS FOR THe FEDERAl. CIRCUIT

SEP 20 ZulZ

JAN HORBAlY

CLERK

Case: 12-5111 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 09/20/2012
DANNY CHOI V. US

cc: Danny Choi

Douglas T. Hoffman, Esq.

s25

4

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