*AMENDED BLD-131 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-3774

___________

JEFFREY NATHAN SCHIRRIPA,

 Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 15-cv-03649)

District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton

____________________________________

Submitted on Appellant’s Motion for Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

February 4, 2016

Before: FUENTES, KRAUSE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 22, 2016)

_________

AMENDED OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

Jeffrey Schirripa appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his petition to 

initiate condemnation proceedings pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 213. For the reasons below, 

we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.

Without giving many details, Schirripa claimed in his petition to have invented a 

technology that could be used to incite rebellion against the United States. He asserted

that the technology could also be used to protect the United States against acts of 

terrorism. He requested that the United States enter an “emergency defense contract” 

with him to allow the President to capture and protect his invention against public 

dissemination. It appears that his technology is related to marijuana as Schirripa argues

that the criminalization of marijuana infringes upon the intellectual property rights of the 

United States Government. From the exhibits attached to the complaint, it appears that 

Schirripa is seeking the decriminalization of marijuana.

The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) & (6). The District Court stated that Schirripa would not be 

given leave to amend his complaint because it would be futile. After the District Court 

denied his motion to reopen the judgment filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), 

Schirripa filed a notice of appeal from the order dismissing his petition. On appeal, he 

has filed a motion for summary action and an expedited evidentiary hearing.

We agree with the District Court that Schirripa has failed to state a claim. He has 

not shown that he has a private right of action that entitles him to enforcement of 50 

U.S.C. § 213. See Umland v. PLANCO Fin. Servs., Inc., 542 F.3d 59, 66 (3d Cir. 2008)
3

(describing factors used to determine whether statute creates private right of action). Nor 

has he shown that he has standing to enforce the protection of intellectual property when

he does not own or have a license for the patent. Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. A-Roo Co., 222 

F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2000). As for the criminalization of marijuana, the 

Supreme Court has upheld as constitutional the application of the Controlled Substances 

Act to the intrastate growth and possession of marijuana for personal medicinal purposes 

as recommended by a doctor. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 22 (2005). Because his 

arguments are without merit, the District Court did not err in denying Schirripa leave to 

amend his petition.

Schirripa has unsuccessfully raised these arguments in prior proceedings. See

Schirripa v. United States, Fed. Cl. Civ. No. 14-cv-01031; Schirripa v. United States, 

Fed. Cl. Civ. No. 13-cv-00530; Schirripa v. United States, D.N.J. Civ. No. 12-cv-01777; 

Schirripa v. United States, D.N.J. Civ. No. 11-cv-06705. Schirripa is warned that 

duplicative litigation may lead to financial sanctions and filing restrictions. Summary 

action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See Third 

Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, 

we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6. 

Schirripa’s motion for summary action, which asks that we summarily vacate the District 

Court’s order and that we grant an expedited evidentiary hearing, is denied. Schirripa’s 

remaining motions are denied.