Court Opinion

ID: 9377334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 17:00:55.403369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:13.524813
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1325     Document: 27     Page: 1    Filed: 03/07/2023

            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                      RAJ K. PATEL,
                     Plaintiff-Appellant

                              v.

                     UNITED STATES,
                     Defendant-Appellee
                   ______________________

                         2023-1325
                   ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:22-cv-01446-LAS, Senior Judge Loren A. Smith.
                  ______________________

                       ON MOTION
                   ______________________

 PER CURIAM.
                          ORDER
     Raj K. Patel appeals from the judgment of the United
 States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint
 and subsequent order denying reconsideration. Mr. Patel
 also moves for “permission to file [a] . . . Motion for a Writ
 of Mandamus” with his opening brief, ECF No. 4, for “leave
 to serve the President directly,” ECF No. 12-1 at 1, for leave
 to amend his motion for leave to serve the President, ECF
 No. 21, and to expedite, ECF No. 25. The United States
Case: 23-1325    Document: 27      Page: 2    Filed: 03/07/2023

 2                                                PATEL   v. US

 separately moves for summary affirmance. ECF No. 17.
 Mr. Patel opposes that motion, the United States replies,
 and Mr. Patel submits a sur-reply, which the court con-
 strues as including a motion for leave to file a sur-reply,
 ECF No. 24.
     Mr. Patel has filed several cases at tribunals within
 this court’s appellate jurisdiction alleging breach of a con-
 tract with the Presidents of the United States “about living
 under the stress weapon.” In October 2022, Mr. Patel filed
 his third complaint raising such allegations at the United
 States Court of Federal Claims. ECF No. 17 at Appx74. In
 November 2022, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the
 complaint for failing to raise any non-frivolous allegation
 that would establish a claim within that court’s jurisdic-
 tion. In December 2022, that court denied reconsideration.
 This appeal followed. *
      Summary affirmance is appropriate when the decision
 below “is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no sub-
 stantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal ex-
 ists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir.
 1994) (citation omitted). Here, the Court of Federal Claims
 was clearly correct that Mr. Patel’s complaint made no non-
 frivolous allegation of a contract with the United States
 that could form a basis for its jurisdiction under the Tucker
 Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). We therefore grant the motion
 to summarily affirm. We end by warning Mr. Patel, who

     *    The Court of Federal Claims’ judgment included an
 anti-filing injunction provision. However, Mr. Patel does
 not challenge that provision in his brief and therefore for-
 feits any such challenge. See SmithKline Beecham Corp. v.
 Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]rgu-
 ments not raised in the opening brief are waived.”); Green
 v. Dep’t of Educ. of N.Y., 16 F.4th 1070, 1074 (2d Cir. 2021)
 (“[A] pro se litigant abandons an issue by failing to address
 it in the appellate brief.”).
Case: 23-1325    Document: 27     Page: 3     Filed: 03/07/2023

 PATEL   v. US                                              3

 has now had three appeals dismissed as clearly baseless,
 see Patel v. White House Chief of Staff, No. 2022-1962, 2022
 WL 3711886, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2022); Patel v. United
 States, No. 2022-1131, 2022 WL 4956868, at *1 (Fed. Cir.
 Feb. 11, 2022), that future abuse of the judicial process
 through frivolous appeal may result in sanctions.
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) The United States’ motion, ECF No. 17, is granted.
 The Court of Federal Claims’ judgment is affirmed.
     (2) Mr. Patel’s motion for permission to file a petition
 for writ of mandamus, ECF No. 4, is denied.
    (3) Mr. Patel’s motion to file a sur-reply is granted.
 ECF No. 24 is accepted for filing.
    (4) All other pending motions are denied as moot.
    (5) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                    FOR THE COURT

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