Court Opinion

ID: 9839517
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 15:02:01.38363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:16.508617
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1551    Document: 12     Page: 1   Filed: 08/16/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                   CEDRIC GREENE,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2023-1551
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:23-cv-00014-KCD, Judge Kathryn C. Davis.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: August 16, 2023
                  ______________________

    CEDRIC GREENE, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

     DANIEL F. ROLAND, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                   ______________________

  Before CHEN, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1551    Document: 12     Page: 2    Filed: 08/16/2023

 2                                              GREENE v. US

 PER CURIAM.
      In January 2023, Mr. Greene filed a complaint in the
 United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) al-
 leging the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
 trict of California violated his First Amendment rights and
 committed slander by sending him mail that referred to
 him as a “Vexatious Litigant.” Appx. 21. 1 The Claims
 Court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over
 the alleged First Amendment violations and tort claims
 and dismissed the complaint. Id. Mr. Greene subse-
 quently filed a motion for reconsideration to vacate the
 judgment and amend his complaint, seeking to pursue a
 different claim, this time for breach of an implied contract
 by the United States government. Appx. 18–20. Specifi-
 cally, it appears Mr. Greene claims he had an oral agree-
 ment with an unnamed employee at the United States
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to transfer a case of
 his, but the Ninth Circuit instead remanded his case to dis-
 trict court. Appx. 22. The proposed amended complaint
 did not identify in what way the unnamed court employee
 had authority to bind the government in contract, let alone
 any of the other conditions for establishing an implied con-
 tract. See, e.g., Lewis v. United States, 70 F.3d 597, 600
 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The Claims Court denied his motion be-
 cause it concluded Mr. Greene’s proposed amendment was
 futile. Appx. 22–23. Mr. Greene appealed the denial of his
 motion. 2
     We do not discern any abuse of the Claims Court’s dis-
 cretion in denying Mr. Greene’s motion.       See Renda

     1 “Appx.” citations are to the appendix filed concur-
 rently with Appellee’s brief.
     2    Mr. Greene also filed a motion we construe as a mo-
 tion for change of venue. ECF No. 10. We deny his motion
 but note Mr. Greene is free to file his complaint in another
 appropriate court.
Case: 23-1551    Document: 12    Page: 3   Filed: 08/16/2023

 GREENE v. US                                            3

 Marine, Inc. v. United States, 509 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed.
 Cir. 2007) (explaining that both a motion for leave to
 amend a complaint and a motion for reconsideration are
 reviewed for abuse of discretion). We agree with the court
 (Appx. 22–23) that Mr. Greene’s motion failed to describe
 “a non-frivolous allegation of a contract with the govern-
 ment,” Engage Learning, Inc. v. Salazar, 660 F.3d 1346,
 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis omitted), and that given
 the insubstantial nature of Mr. Greene’s implied contract
 allegation, the amended complaint would have been futile,
 see Lewis, 70 F.3d at 603. Accordingly, the Claims Court
 did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Greene’s mo-
 tion.
                       AFFIRMED