This morning, the Federal Circuit released seven nonprecedential orders. One denies a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Western District of Texas, one grants a petition to remand a case to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, one grants summary affirmance in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one transfers a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board to the District of Maryland, one grants summary affirmance in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one transfers a case appealed from the District of New Mexico to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and, lastly, one transfers a case appealed from the Central District of California to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Here are the introductions to the orders.
In re Core Scientific, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Core Scientific, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to transfer the underlying case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”). Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (collectively, “Malikie”) oppose. We deny the petition.
Cramer v. Department of Justice (Nonprecedential Order)
John Cramer appeals from a December 22, 2025 decision of the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Department of Justice moves to dismiss or, alternatively, to remand, noting that on March 16, 2026, the Bureau purported to sua sponte rescind that determination for purposes of reconsideration. Mr. Cramer does not oppose remand.
May v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
Before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary disposition. We grant summary affirmance.
This is the second time Samuel J. May has filed an appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims’s dismissal of a complaint seeking a share of a 2012 settlement between the federal government and his former employer. In the first appeal, May v. United States, No. 2023-1124, 2023 WL 3836088 (Fed. Cir. June 6, 2023), this court affirmed the dismissal of his takings and contract claims as time-barred and his remaining constitutional, tort, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims as outside of that court’s limited jurisdiction. In the present action, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed his claims as barred by issue preclusion and also outside of that court’s limited jurisdiction
Cooke v. United States Postal Service (Nonprecedential Order)
In response to this court’s April 24, 2026, show-cause order, the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) urges dismissal or transfer. Dawana Cooke requests transfer if this court lacks jurisdiction. We transfer.
Polinski v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
Peter Joseph Polinski appeals from the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint and subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration. The United States moves to summarily affirm the decision or dismiss the appeal as frivolous. Mr. Polinski opposes and moves unopposed for leave to file a corrected supplemental response.
Fulkerson v. New Mexico Department of Justice (Nonprecedential Order)
William M. Fulkerson filed suit in federal district court in New Mexico against the New Mexico Department of Justice, the New Mexico Attorney General, and several former Attorneys General seeking $50 million for alleged constitutional and civil rights violations following litigation related to his prior Social Security Administration employment. He now appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint. In response to this court’s order to show cause, Mr. Fulkerson argues in support of our jurisdiction, and the New Mexico Department of Justice urges dismissal.
Mejia v. Young (Nonprecedential Order)
Because this court appeared to lack jurisdiction, we directed the parties to show cause why this case should not be transferred or dismissed. Neither party responded.
Ruben Mejia filed this action at the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging a violation of his civil rights. The district court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. On March 10, 2026, the court denied Mr. Mejia’s motions for recusal and reassignment. Mr. Mejia filed a notice of appeal challenging the March 10, 2026, order. Although the notice indicated that Mr. Mejia was appealing to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, it appears the notice was transmitted just to this court and not the Ninth Circuit.