PATEL v. WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF , No. 22-1962 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-1962 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 08/29/2022 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ RAJ K. PATEL, Appellant v. WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF, Appellee ______________________ 2022-1962 ______________________ Appeal from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals in No. 7419. ______________________ ON MOTION ______________________ PER CURIAM. ORDER Raj K. Patel filed suit at the United States Civilian Board of Contract Appeals for battery, assault, torture, civil rights violations, and breach of contract. The Board dismissed. On appeal, Mr. Patel moves to stay the deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration or rehearing at the Board pending his efforts to seek the Supreme Court’s review in another of his cases and moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Appellee opposes the motion to stay. Case: 22-1962 Document: 24 2 PATEL Page: 2 Filed: 08/29/2022 v. WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF Given that Mr. Patel has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, it is appropriate to consider whether his appeal is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (“[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the . . . appeal is frivolous. . . .”); see also Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307–08 (1989) (explaining that while § 1915 “authorizes courts to dismiss a ‘frivolous or malicious’ action, . . . there is little doubt they would have [the] power to do so even in the absence of this statutory provision”). Mr. Patel provides no reasoned basis for disturbing the Board’s dismissal. Even a liberal reading of his filings fails to produce a non-frivolous allegation of a contract with an executive agency within the Board’s jurisdiction. Engage Learning, Inc. v. Salazar, 660 F.3d 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Mr. Patel alleges only that he formed a contract with Presidents of the United States and describes “fantastic or delusional scenarios” that are “clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989). * Dismissal is therefore appropriate under the circumstances. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) Any pending motions are denied as moot. We note that this is now the second time this court has informed Mr. Patel that his contractual allegations are baseless. See Patel v. United States, No. 2022-1131 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2022), ECF No. 31 (“The Court of Federal Claims correctly concluded that Mr. Patel’s allegations were baseless and that it lacked jurisdiction over any of his claims.”). * Case: 22-1962 PATEL Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 08/29/2022 v. WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF 3 (3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT August 29, 2022 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
