Court Opinion

ID: 9946248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 16:03:20.876445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:33.279339
License: Public Domain

Case: 24-1122     Document: 20     Page: 1    Filed: 02/05/2024

            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

            KENNETH LESLIE CALDWELL,
                 Plaintiff-Appellant

                              v.

                     UNITED STATES,
                     Defendant-Appellee
                   ______________________

                         2024-1122
                   ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:23-cv-00320-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.
                  ______________________

                       ON MOTION
                   ______________________

 PER CURIAM.
                          ORDER
     Kenneth Leslie Caldwell appeals from the judgment of
 the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his
 complaint. The United States moves for summary affir-
 mance. ECF No. 12. Mr. Caldwell opposes, submits his
 opening brief, and moves for various relief, including
 “emergency relief to be determined by [the] court,” ECF No.
 6 at 1; for expedited restitution of at least $80,000, ECF No.
Case: 24-1122     Document: 20      Page: 2    Filed: 02/05/2024

 2                                              CALDWELL v. US

 8-1 at 3; summary judgment, ECF No. 10-1; and
 “$1,000,000 as a permanent injunction,” ECF No. 17-1 at 2.
      Mr. Caldwell previously sued the Judicial Administra-
 tion of Idaho and Idaho-based media companies in Idaho
 state court. After that suit was unsuccessful, he filed the
 underlying complaint at the Court of Federal Claims, al-
 leging the Judicial Administration of Idaho as well as other
 state and federal officials and entities violated various
 laws, including provisions of U.S. Code title 18 (criminal
 code); U.S. Code title 42 (civil rights); 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–254;
 the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Four-
 teenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and antitrust
 laws. Mr. Caldwell also requested that the Court of Fed-
 eral Claims compel the Patent and Trademark Office to
 grant him intellectual property rights to 28 “ideas” he iden-
 tified in his complaint. The Court of Federal Claims
 granted the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
 This appeal followed.
     The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, limits the jurisdic-
 tion of the Court of Federal Claims to claims for money
 damages against the United States based on sources of sub-
 stantive law that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating
 compensation by the Federal Government.” United States
 v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) (citation omit-
 ted). For the reasons explained in the Court of Federal
 Claims’s Opinion and Order, none of the sources of law
 identified in the complaint were shown to create a right to
 monetary damages against the United States. * And while

     *   Although the complaint generally referenced the
 Fifth Amendment, the Court of Federal Claims correctly
 explained that Mr. Caldwell did not allege any taking of
 property that could plausibly support a claim under the
 Takings Clause and the trial court lacks jurisdiction over
 any alleged violation of the Due Process Clause. See Le-
 Blanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Case: 24-1122     Document: 20     Page: 3     Filed: 02/05/2024

 CALDWELL v. US                                              3

 28 U.S.C. § 1498 authorizes the trial court to award dam-
 ages for the use or manufacture of a covered patent or cop-
 yright by or on behalf of the United States, Mr. Caldwell’s
 complaint failed to identify any issued patent or copyright
 to support such a claim.
     We have considered Mr. Caldwell’s arguments in his
 brief, but find they fail to a raise a non-frivolous basis for
 error. Accordingly, summary affirmance is appropriate
 here because there is no “substantial question regarding
 the outcome” of the appeal. Joshua v. United States, 17
 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) The United States’s motion for summary affir-
 mance is granted, and the judgment of the United States
 Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.
     (2) All other motions are denied.
     (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                               FOR THE COURT

 February 5, 2024
       Date