This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and a Rule 36 judgment. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the court dismissed an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and dismissed in part another appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the first nonprecedential order, the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. In the second nonprecedential order, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Court of Federal Claims to docket a complaint. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
Johnson v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Norman B. Johnson appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ denial of service connection for pes planus (flat feet). See Johnson v. McDonough, No. 19-7673, 2021 WL 2170817 (Vet. App. May 28, 2021) (Decision). Because we lack jurisdiction to review the issues raised in Mr. Johnson’s appeal, we dismiss.
Bennett v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Ronnie L. Bennett, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming the effective date of his disability rating for pseudofolliculitis barbae (“PFB”) with disfigurement (a skin condition typically caused by shaving) that began during his period of active service. We lack jurisdiction over some of Mr. Bennett’s claims, and affirm the Veterans Court’s ruling to the extent that we do have jurisdiction. We therefore affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Patel v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)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 separately moves for summary affirmance. . . . Here, the Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that Mr. Patel’s complaint made no nonfrivolous 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 has now had three appeals dismissed as clearly baseless . . . 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.
In re Patel (Nonprecedential Order)
Raj K. Patel petitions for a writ of mandamus asking the court to direct the United States Court of Federal Claims to docket his complaint submitted to that court on December 1, 2022. . . . In a separate order issued today, we have affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ judgment in all respects. Patel v. United States, No. 2023-1325 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2023). Because Mr. Patel presents no coherent argument here regarding how the allegations in his returned complaint are new matters that fall within the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction, he has not shown entitlement to having his complaint docketed.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition is denied.
(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.