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NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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
