Court Opinion

ID: 9555558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-14 14:01:01.537623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:41.963614
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                      ____________
No. 23-5048                                                September Term, 2022
                                                                      1:22-cv-03805-UNA
                                                      Filed On: August 14, 2023
Raj K. Patel, The Excellent the Excellent,
from all capacities,

              Appellant

       v.

United States, et al.,

              Appellees

            ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

       BEFORE:       Henderson and Walker, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit
                     Judge

                                     JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

        ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s February 10, 2023 order
dismissing appellant’s complaint and civil action with prejudice be affirmed. On appeal,
appellant primarily challenges a decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the
district court’s conclusion that it could not exercise jurisdiction to review that decision.
The district court correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review a decision by
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186, 192
(D.C. Cir. 2006). In addition, the district court correctly concluded that appellant’s
claims against a federal judge were barred by judicial immunity. See Stump v.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978). To the extent appellant raised independent
claims against the United States, President Joseph R. Biden, and Robert Kiepura, any
such claims also arose from the proceedings before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
and have not been preserved for appeal. See Cement Kiln Recycling Coal. v. EPA, 255
F.3d 855, 869 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (“A litigant does not properly raise an issue by
addressing it in a cursory fashion with only bare-bones arguments.”) (quotation marks
omitted). Lastly, to the extent appellant requests a writ of mandamus, he has not
shown a “clear and indisputable right” to mandamus relief. See Gulfstream Aerospace
Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988).
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-5048                                                September Term, 2022

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

                                       Per Curiam

                                                         FOR THE COURT:
                                                         Mark J. Langer, Clerk

                                                 BY:     /s/
                                                         Daniel J. Reidy
                                                         Deputy Clerk

                                          Page 2