Court Opinion

ID: 9383943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 15:01:37.994638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:48.906715
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-113     Document: 10    Page: 1   Filed: 03/07/2023

          NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                  In re: RAJ K. PATEL,
                         Petitioner
                  ______________________

                         2023-113
                  ______________________

   On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Federal Claims.
                 ______________________

               ON PETITION AND MOTION
                  ______________________

PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
    Raj K. Patel petitions for a writ of mandamus asking
the court to direct the United States Court of Federal
Claims to docket his complaint submitted to that court on
December 1, 2022. ECF No. 2-1 at 1. Mr. Patel also moves
to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, “for leave to serve
the President directly,” ECF No. 6-1 at 1, and to expedite,
ECF No. 9.
    In October 2022, Mr. Patel filed his third complaint at
the Court of Federal Claims asserting breach of a contract
with the Presidents of the United States “about living un-
der the stress weapon.” Complaint at 52, Patel v. United
States, No. 22-1446 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 3, 2022), ECF No. 1. On
Case: 23-113     Document: 10      Page: 2     Filed: 03/07/2023

2                                                   IN RE: PATEL

November 17, 2022, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed
Mr. Patel’s complaint. The court also issued an anti-filing
injunction directing that the clerk of that court “accept no
further complaints from [Mr.] Patel without a motion for
leave explaining how the complaint raises new matters
properly before” that court. Patel v. United States, No. 22-
1446, slip op. at 1 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 9, 2022), ECF No. 16.
    On December 1, 2022, Mr. Patel submitted his fourth
complaint at the Court of Federal Claims with a motion for
leave to file the complaint as a new matter. On January 5,
2023, the Court of Federal Claims denied Mr. Patel leave
and directed the submission be returned to him, explaining
that his “justification for his new cause of action . . . is con-
clusory and lacks enough specificity to enable the [court] to
determine whether Mr. Patel’s claims potentially fall
within the subject matter jurisdiction of” that court. Patel
v. United States, No. 23-7028, slip op. at 1–2 (Fed. Cl. Jan.
5, 2023), ECF No. 1. Mr. Patel’s petition asks us to compel
the docketing of that complaint.
     Mr. Patel separately appealed from the November 2022
judgment of the Court of Federal Claims but raised no chal-
lenge to the court’s anti-filing injunction. In a separate or-
der issued today, we have affirmed the Court of Federal
Claims’ judgment in all respects. Patel v. United States,
No. 2023-1325 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2023). Because Mr. Pa-
tel presents no coherent argument here regarding how the
allegations in his returned complaint are new matters that
fall within the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction, he has
not shown entitlement to having his complaint docketed.
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) The petition is denied.
Case: 23-113    Document: 10   Page: 3   Filed: 03/07/2023

IN RE: PATEL                                            3

    (2) All pending motions are denied as moot.
                                 FOR THE COURT

March 7, 2023                    /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
    Date                         Peter R. Marksteiner
                                 Clerk of Court