Court Opinion

ID: 9890131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 16:01:01.72384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:56.066281
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2334   Document: 9     Page: 1   Filed: 10/12/2023

          NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                ______________________

                   SAMUEL J. MAY,
                   Plaintiff-Appellant

                           v.

                    AMGEN INC.,
                  Defendant-Appellee
                ______________________

                      2023-2334
                ______________________

   Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 3:10-cv-02577-WHA,
Judge William H. Alsup.
                 ______________________

                    ON PETITION
                ______________________

PER CURIAM.
                       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’s action against Amgen Inc. in district court
alleging violations under the False Claims Act was dis-
missed in 2012 for failure to prosecute. United States ex
Case: 23-2334      Document: 9     Page: 2     Filed: 10/12/2023

2                                             MAY v. AMGEN INC.

rel. May v. Amgen Inc., No. 3:10-cv-02577-WHA (N.D. Cal.
Jan. 5, 2012). Mr. May’s 2016 motion to reopen that case
was denied, United States ex rel. May v. Amgen Inc., No.
3:10-cv-02577-WHA (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2016), and the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dis-
missed his appeal from that denial in 2017, May v. Amgen,
No. 16-16394 (9th Cir. Mar. 2, 2017).
    Mr. May now files this “amended notice of appeal” to
this court and petitions for a writ of mandamus, requesting
that we direct the Attorney General “to make good on the
promise to compensate violative of the Fifth Amendment
Takings Clause,” compel heads of agencies “to perform a
duty of compensation owed by creating implied-in-fact con-
tract,” or “vacate order denying motion to reopen case.”
ECF No. 1-2 at 2. We clearly lack jurisdiction to do so. Mr.
May cites 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651 and 1295(a)(1), but those stat-
utory provisions do not grant us jurisdiction since § 1651
“is not an independent grant of appellate jurisdiction,”
Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 535 (1999) (citation
omitted), there was no patent claim alleged for § 1295(a)(1)
to provide jurisdiction, and no other basis for our jurisdic-
tion has been identified. We also clearly lack jurisdiction
to review the decision of the Ninth 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,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) The matter is dismissed.
    (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                         FOR THE COURT

October 12, 2023                         /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
      Date                               Jarrett B. Perlow
                                         Clerk of Court