Court Opinion

ID: 9892312
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 15:01:36.812013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:39.993439
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2311   Document: 14     Page: 1   Filed: 10/23/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                   SAMUEL J. MAY,
                   Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

  UNITED STATES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
 SERVICES, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,
     EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
       COMMISSION, AMGEN USA, INC.,
              Defendants-Appellees

   DEBORAH ZWANY, SARA WINSLOW, PATRICK
      HANNIGAN, OMOTUNDE OSUNSANMI,
                  Defendants
            ______________________

                       2023-2311
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 District of Colorado in No. 1:17-cv-00637-RM-SKC, Judge
 Raymond P. Moore.
                   ______________________

                     ON PETITION
                 ______________________

 PER CURIAM.
Case: 23-2311     Document: 14     Page: 2    Filed: 10/23/2023

 2                                                   MAY v. US

                          ORDER
     Samuel J. May files an “amended notice of appeal” “in
 support of” his “petition seeking writ of mandamus.” ECF
 No. 1-2 at 1. We dismiss.
      Mr. May sued Amgen USA, Inc. along with the named
 federal agencies and officials in the United States District
 Court for the District of Colorado, “seeking millions of dol-
 lars” based on contract and tort claims. United States ex
 rel. May v. United States, 839 F. App’x 214, 217 (10th Cir.
 2020). The district court dismissed the contract claims and
 granted summary judgment against Mr. May on the tort
 claims. Id. at 216. The United States Court of Appeals for
 the Tenth Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court’s
 judgment. Id. at 218.
      Mr. May now requests that we act on his case “to make
 good on the promise to compensate violative of the Fifth
 Amendment Takings Clause,” or direct that he be paid
 based on “implied-in-fact contract,” or “vacate order deny-
 ing proposed writ of entry by the United States District
 Court, District of Colorado.” ECF No. 1-2 at 1–2. We
 clearly lack jurisdiction to do so. Mr. May asserts that we
 have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), but that is
 plainly frivolous not least of which because he did not raise
 a patent claim. Mr. May also cites 28 U.S.C. § 1651, but by
 its own terms that provision only permits issuance of writs
 “necessary or appropriate in aid of [a court’s] respective ju-
 risdictions.” See Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 535
 (1999) (“The All Writs Act is not an independent grant of
 appellate jurisdiction.” (ellipses in original and citation
 omitted)).
     We also clearly lack jurisdiction to review the decision
 of the Tenth Circuit, and it would not be in the interest of
 justice to transfer to that court under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, as
 it has already resolved the matter.
     Accordingly,
Case: 23-2311   Document: 14        Page: 3   Filed: 10/23/2023

 MAY v. US                                                  3

    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) This matter is dismissed.
    (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                         FOR THE COURT

 October 23, 2023                        /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
      Date                               Jarrett B. Perlow
                                         Clerk of Court