NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MOSHE A. PERRY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK 

OFFICE, KATHERINE K. VIDAL, Under Secretary 

of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director 

of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 

WENDY GARBER, Director Patent Technology Center 3600 No. 3649, DARNELL JAYNE, Director No. 

3649, DALE SHAW, Ombudsman, KRISTINE 

CLARETTE MATTER, Examiner, KATHERINE 

MATECKI, Group Director, Technology Center No. 

3649, LAURA MARTIN, Examiner, SHIRENE 

WILLIS BRANTLEY, Attorney Advisor at the 

USPTO Petition Department, CHARLES STEVEN

BRANTLEY, Attorney Advisor at the USPTO Petition Department,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________

2022-1720

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 2:19-cv-00637-RGKJC, Judge R. Gary Klausner.

Case: 22-1720 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 08/09/2022
2 PERRY v. PTO

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Moshe A. Perry moves for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”). For the following reasons, we dismiss. 

In January 2019, Mr. Perry filed a complaint in federal

district court against the United States Patent and Trademark Office and various officials alleging misconduct in the 

handling of his patent applications. On February 1, 2019, 

the district court denied his IFP motion and dismissed the 

complaint as frivolous. Mr. Perry did not appeal that ruling. However, Mr. Perry subsequently did file a complaint

raising similar allegations at the United States Court of 

Federal Claims. The Court of Federal Claims also dismissed his claims. Mr. Perry appealed that decision to this 

court, and we affirmed. Perry v. United States, No. 2020-

2084, 2021 WL 2935075 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2021).

After unsuccessfully pursuing his claims in the Court 

of Federal Claims, Mr. Perry went back to the district 

court, seeking to reopen his case. On January 20, 2022, the 

district court ordered that the motion be rejected for filing 

and returned to Mr. Perry, noting that his case had previously been dismissed. On March 16, 2022, Mr. Perry filed 

another IFP motion with the district court. On March 21, 

2022, the district court again ordered that the document be 

rejected for filing and returned, again noting that “IFP 

[was] previously denied and [the] case closed.” ECF No. 1-

2 at 38. On April 11, 2022, Mr. Perry filed a notice of appeal, referencing the January 20, 2022, and March 21, 

2022, orders of the district court. Id. at 5.

Case: 22-1720 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 08/09/2022
PERRY v. PTO 3

We lack jurisdiction over the January 20, 2022, order, 

because an appeal of that order is untimely.1 An appeal 

from a judgment or order in a civil action against an agency 

or official of the United States must be filed within 60 days 

from the entry of the judgment or order being appealed. 28 

U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). That deadline 

is jurisdictional. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 

(2007). The notice of appeal here was filed more than 60 

days from the date the court issued that ruling.2

We also dismiss Mr. Perry’s appeal from the March 21, 

2022, order as frivolous. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for 

S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307–08 (1989); cf. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (“[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any 

time if the court determines that . . . the . . . appeal is frivolous[.]”). It is well within a district court’s authority to 

refuse to accept repetitive filings after a case has been 

closed. See Davis v. Adler, 765 F. App’x 400, 401 (9th Cir. 

2019) (citing Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 

F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) and Bias v. Moynihan, 508 

F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007)); Gill v. Wells, 610 F. App’x 

809, 812 (11th Cir. 2015). Here, the district court declined

to accept Mr. Perry’s second IFP motion because it had previously dismissed his claims. Mr. Perry has failed to make 

any cogent, non-frivolous argument as to why that determination was an abuse of discretion. 

1 To the extent that Mr. Perry is also seeking to appeal from the February 2019 order dismissing his case, 

that appeal would also be untimely. 

2 We also see no basis here to construe Mr. Perry’s 

notice of appeal as either a motion to extend the time to 

appeal or reopen the time to appeal under Rule 4(a)(5) or 

(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The notice 

of appeal does not seek such relief and was filed outside the 

applicable deadlines for filing such motions. 

Case: 22-1720 Document: 37 Page: 3 Filed: 08/09/2022
4 PERRY v. PTO

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) Mr. Perry’s appeal is dismissed. 

(2) All pending motions are denied as moot. 

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

August 9, 2022

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

 

 

Case: 22-1720 Document: 37 Page: 4 Filed: 08/09/2022