May v. United States ( 2023 )

Case: 23-1124 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 06/06/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SAMUEL J. MAY, DBA SOFT PLANET SYNERGY,
LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1124
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:21-cv-01496-CNL, Judge Carolyn N. Lerner.
______________________
Decided: June 6, 2023
______________________
SAMUEL J. MAY, Lehi, UT, pro se.
KRISTIN ELAINE OLSON, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, DOUGLAS K.
MICKLE.
______________________
Before REYNA, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1124 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 06/06/2023
2 MAY v. US
PER CURIAM.
Samuel May brought the present action against the
United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Claims
Court) in June 2021. Central to this action is Mr. May’s
allegation that his unsuccessful 2010 lawsuit in federal dis-
trict court against his former employer Amgen, Inc.—
which Mr. May brought on behalf of the United States un-
der the False Claims Act—alerted the United States to al-
leged misconduct by Amgen and thereby helped the United
States secure a settlement with Amgen in December 2012,
under which Amgen paid the government more than half a
billion dollars. In the present action, Mr. May seeks a
share of the settlement amount, asserting constitutional,
contract, tort, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the
United States. The Claims Court dismissed the action for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We affirm, concluding
that Mr. May’s takings and contract claims are time-barred
by 28 U.S.C. § 2501 and that his remaining claims are out-
side the Claims Court’s jurisdiction for substantive reasons
to the extent that they are not time-barred.
I
A
Mr. May was employed from April 2002 until June
2006 by Amgen, which is not a party to this appeal or to
the underlying Claims Court case. After suing Amgen in
California state court for wrongful termination, among
other things, see Complaint, May v. Amgen, No. SC050255
(Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 26, 2007), Mr. May voluntarily dis-
missed that suit and demanded arbitration for materially
the same claims in February 2008.
The arbitrator ruled in favor of Amgen in October 2011,
and a Colorado state court confirmed the arbitration award
in March 2012. The federal district court likewise denied
Mr. May’s petition to vacate or modify the arbitration
award under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16.
Case: 23-1124 Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 06/06/2023
MAY v. US 3
See May v. Amgen, Inc., No. C 12-01367, 2012 WL 2196151(N.D. Cal. June 14, 2012). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court’s judgment, see May v. Amgen, Inc., 564 F.
App’x 313 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam), and the Supreme
Court denied certiorari, see May v. Amgen, Inc., 574 U.S.
1193 (2015).
While the arbitration was pending, on June 11, 2010,
Mr. May filed a qui tam complaint against Amgen in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733.
He alleged that Amgen, among other things, knowingly
made false statements to the Food and Drug Administra-
tion (FDA) and knowingly promoted a drug (Aranesp) for
indications not approved by the FDA. See Complaint ¶ 10,
United States ex rel. May v. Amgen Inc., No. C10-2577
(N.D. Cal. June 11, 2010).
The False Claims Act imposes civil liability on “any
person who,” among other things, “knowingly presents, or
causes to be presented,” to the United States “a false or
fraudulent claim for payment or approval.” 31 U.S.C.
§ 3729(a)(1)(A). An action under the False Claims Act—in
district court, see 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a)—“may be commenced
in one of two ways.” Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 769 (2000).
The Attorney General may bring a civil action directly
against the alleged false claimant, or a private person
(called the relator) may bring a qui tam civil action against
the alleged false claimant “in the name of the [g]overn-
ment.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(a), (b)(1).
If a relator brings a qui tam action, the relator must
serve a copy of the complaint and any supporting evidence
on the United States, which then has 60 days to decide
whether it will intervene in the action. Id. § 3730(b)(2), (4).
If the United States intervenes, then it has “the primary
responsibility for prosecuting the action,” but the relator
may continue to participate as a party. Id. § 3730(c)(1). If
Case: 23-1124 Document: 38 Page: 4 Filed: 06/06/2023
4 MAY v. US
the United States declines to intervene, then the relator
conducts the action, unless the court permits the United
States to intervene later for good cause shown. Id.
§ 3730(b)(4)(B), (c)(3). The relator receives a portion of any
proceeds from the qui tam action: 15–25% if the United
States intervenes and 25–30% if the United States does not
intervene. Id. § 3730(d)(1)–(2). See generally Vermont
Agency of Natural Resources, 529 U.S. at 768–70.
In Mr. May’s qui tam action, the United States elected
not to intervene. Eventually, on January 5, 2012, the
Northern District of California dismissed Mr. May’s qui
tam suit for failure to prosecute, reasoning that Mr. May
was proceeding pro se and, in the Ninth Circuit, a pro se
plaintiff cannot maintain a qui tam action. See Order,
United States ex rel. May v. Amgen Inc., No. C10-2577
(N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2012) (citing Stoner v. Santa Clara
County Office of Education, 502 F.3d 1116, 1126–27 (9th
Cir. 2007)).
B
In December 2012, Amgen settled 10 separate qui tam
actions brought by relators other than Mr. May. The set-
tlement agreement memorialized the United States’ con-
tentions that “Amgen knowingly promoted the sale and use
of Aranesp for indications,” “dosing, intervals, amounts, or
regiments” that were “not approved by the [FDA].” U.S.
Supp. Appx. 339 ¶ G(1)(a). The settlement agreement re-
quired Amgen to pay about $587.3 million to the United
States and $24.9 million to certain States (with more to be
paid under a criminal plea agreement).
Mr. May, believing that he was entitled to a share of
the settlement, moved in April 2016 to reopen his qui tam
action in the Northern District of California. See Plaintiffs’
Notice of Motion, United States ex rel. May v. Amgen Inc.,
No. C10-2577 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2016). The court denied
the motion because Mr. May still had not retained counsel.
See Order, United States ex rel. May v. Amgen Inc., No.
Case: 23-1124 Document: 38 Page: 5 Filed: 06/06/2023
MAY v. US 5
C10-2577 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2016) (citing Stoner, 502 F.3d
at 1126). Mr. May appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which
told him that it would dismiss the appeal unless he ob-
tained counsel within 35 days. See Order, United States ex
rel. May v. Amgen Inc., No. 16-16394 (9th Cir. Aug. 31,
2016) (per curiam). Approximately six months later, on
March 2, 2017, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal be-
cause Mr. May “ha[d] not obtained counsel.” See Order,
United States ex rel. May v. Amgen Inc., No. 16-16394 (9th
Cir. Mar. 2, 2017) (per curiam).
Eight days later, on March 10, 2017, Mr. May filed a
new complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado against Amgen, the United States, and several
federal agencies and officials. See Complaint, United
States ex rel. May v. United States, No. 17-cv-00637 (D.
Colo. Mar. 10, 2017). In that complaint, Mr. May asserted
several contract and tort claims and sought a 25–30% rela-
tor’s share of the settlement amount. In August 2018, the
District of Colorado granted Amgen’s motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
and, as for the federal government parties, dismissed the
contract claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and
granted summary judgment rejecting the tort claims. See
United States ex rel. May v. United States, No. 17-cv-00637,
2018 WL 7141426, at *3, *8 (D. Colo. Aug. 29, 2018). The
Tenth Circuit affirmed. See United States ex rel. May v.
United States, 839 F. App’x 214 (10th Cir. 2020).
C
On June 15, 2021, Mr. May filed his Claims Court com-
plaint in the case now before us on appeal. Mr. May as-
serted in the complaint that, because his original qui tam
complaint “ultimately facilitated” the United States’ recov-
ery from Amgen under the 2012 settlement agreement, he
is entitled to a 25–30% relator’s share of the settlement
amount. U.S. Supp. Appx. 428 ¶ 37. He asserted breach of
contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
Case: 23-1124 Document: 38 Page: 6 Filed: 06/06/2023
6 MAY v. US
fair dealing; professional negligence; a wrong assertedly
within 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and violations of the First Amend-
ment, the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, and the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. U.S.
Supp. Appx. 430–38.
The United States moved to dismiss under Claims
Court Rule 12(b)(1) and (6), and on July 13, 2022, the
Claims Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
See May v. United States, No. 21-1496C, 2022 WL 2717721(Fed. Cl. July 13, 2022). The Claims Court concluded first
that at least the contract and takings claims (and most if
not all others) were barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2501, which re-
quires a claim against the United States in the Claims
Court to be filed within six years of the claim first accruing.
See id. at *5–6. The Claims Court also concluded that it
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over all of Mr. May’s
claims for substantive reasons, explaining in part that, be-
cause Mr. May’s claims “rest on his alleged entitlement to
a relator’s share” of the settlement, the Claims Court would
be required “to determine whether [Mr. May] ‘had a valid
qui tam suit under the False Claims Act’”—a determina-
tion that the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to make. Id.at *6–7 (quoting LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025,
1030–31 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Mr. May timely sought reconsideration under Claims
Court Rules 59 and 60, but the Claims Court denied the
motion on October 27, 2022. Mr. May timely filed a notice
of appeal on October 31, 2022, invoking our jurisdiction un-
der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). We dismissed the appeal on De-
cember 2, 2022, for non-payment of the docketing fee
required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1), but when Mr.
May then paid the docketing fee, we reinstated his appeal.
II
We decide de novo whether the Claims Court had sub-
ject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. May’s claims in this case,
in which the jurisdictional issue does not depend on
Case: 23-1124 Document: 38 Page: 7 Filed: 06/06/2023
MAY v. US 7
findings on contested facts. See Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v.
United States, 862 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing
Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. v.
United States, 805 F.3d 1082, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Mr.
May bears the burden of establishing the Claims Court’s
jurisdiction, see Brandt v. United States, 710 F.3d 1369,
1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Taylor v. United States, 303
F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)), although we interpret
pro se plaintiffs’ complaints liberally, see Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). We conclude that Mr. May’s Fifth
Amendment takings claim and his contract claims are
time-barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2501 and that the Claims Court
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction for substantive reasons
over Mr. May’s remaining constitutional, tort, and § 1983
claims, to the extent that they are not time-barred by
§ 2501.
A
28 U.S.C. § 2501 provides: “Every claim of which the
[Claims Court] has jurisdiction shall be barred unless the
petition thereon is filed within six years after such claim
first accrues.” This six-year statute of limitations is juris-
dictional, see John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States,
552 U.S. 130, 133–34 (2008); Alpine PCS, Inc. v. United
States, 878 F.3d 1086, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing John R.
Sand & Gravel, 552 U.S. 130): It is not subject to waiver,
forfeiture, or extension by equitable considerations, such as
equitable tolling, Young v. United States, 529 F.3d 1380,
1384 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing John R. Sand & Gravel, 552
U.S. at 132–35); see generally MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v.
Transform Holdco LLC, 143 S. Ct. 927, 936 (2023) (noting
consequences of “jurisdictional” status); Wilkins v. United
States, 143 S. Ct. 870, 875–76 (2023) (same). “Generally, a
claim against the United States first accrues on the date
when all the events have occurred which fix the liability of
the [g]overnment and entitle the claimant to institute an
action.” Turping v. United States, 913 F.3d 1060, 1064
Case: 23-1124 Document: 38 Page: 8 Filed: 06/06/2023
8 MAY v. US
(Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Bowen v. United States, 292 F.3d
1383, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
A Fifth Amendment takings claim, in the present con-
text, has accrued (at least) by the time “the taking action
occurs”—i.e., when “the government deprives an owner of
the use of his or her property”—and “the plaintiff knew or
should have known about the existence” of the govern-
ment’s action. Petro-Hunt, 862 F.3d at 1378; see Caquelin
v. United States, 959 F.3d 1360, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(taking occurs when government action causes loss of prop-
erty interest plaintiff would otherwise have had); Memmer
v. United States, 50 F.4th 136, 145 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (same).
A breach-of-contract claim, in the present context, ordinar-
ily accrues when “the alleged breach[] occur[s],” Brighton
Village Associates v. United States, 52 F.3d 1056, 1060
(Fed. Cir. 1995), i.e., “when the [alleged] contractor could
ordinarily demand his money and bring his suit if payment
was not made,” Lins v. United States, 688 F.2d 784, 787
(Ct. Cl. 1982) (quoting Nager Electric Co. v. United States,
368 F.2d 847, 852 (Ct. Cl. 1966)); see also Franconia Asso-
ciates v. United States, 536 U.S. 129, 142–43 (2002) (“Fail-
ure by the promisor to perform at the time indicated for
performance in the contract establishes an immediate
breach.” (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 235(2)
(1979))).
Here, Mr. May alleges that the Amgen–United States
settlement agreement was a taking of his property and a
breach of contract by the United States. The alleged taking
and the alleged breach of contract occurred by December
2012, when the settlement agreement was executed. Cf.
Abbas v. United States, 842 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“Because his claim is that the 1953 Treaty was a
taking of his property, and because the treaty went into ef-
fect in 1953, Mr. Abbas was required to file his takings
complaint by 1959.”). Mr. May also knew of the settlement
agreement’s existence by no later than May 1, 2015, the
date that Mr. May filed a motion for reconsideration in the
Case: 23-1124 Document: 38 Page: 9 Filed: 06/06/2023
MAY v. US 9
Northern District of California action that ultimately de-
nied Mr. May’s petition to vacate or modify the original ar-
bitration award. See May, 2012 WL 2196151, aff’d, 564 F.
App’x 313 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam), cert. denied, 574
U.S. 1193 (2015). In that May 1, 2015 filing, Mr. May
stated:
Amgen settled with the US [g]overnment and ten
other whistleblowers . . . to terminate all pending
civil and criminal investigations including Plain-
tiffs unresolved qui tam claims. Plaintiff Samuel
May was wholly EXCLUDED even though he was
also a bonafide original-source qui tam relator and
PARTY to the settlement at the outset.
U.S. Supp. Appx. 150 (Mr. May’s May 1, 2015 Motion for
Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration in N.D. Cal.).
Mr. May’s Fifth Amendment takings claim and his con-
tract claims thus accrued no later than May 1, 2015: By
that date, the alleged taking and breach of contract had oc-
curred, and Mr. May was aware of the alleged taking and
breach. See Petro-Hunt, 862 F.3d at 1378. Because Mr.
May filed his complaint in the Claims Court on June 15,
2021, more than six years after the date that the takings
and breach of contract claims first accrued, those claims
are time-barred by § 2501.
Mr. May briefly alludes in his complaint to the “contin-
uing claim doctrine,” U.S. Supp. Appx. 428–29 ¶ 41, a doc-
trine that, when applicable, “allows [the Claims Court to
hear] ‘later arising claims even if the statute of limitations
has lapsed for earlier events,’” Tamerlane, Ltd. v. United
States, 550 F.3d 1135, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Tam-
erlane, Ltd. v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 724, 736 (2008)).
But “for the continuing claim doctrine to apply, the plain-
tiff’s claim must be inherently susceptible to being broken
down into a series of independent and distinct events or
wrongs, each having its own associated damages.” Brown
Park Estates-Fairfield Development Co. v. United States,
Case: 23-1124 Document: 38 Page: 10 Filed: 06/06/2023
10 MAY v. US
127 F.3d 1449, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, Mr. May’s Fifth
Amendment takings claim and his contract claims are
based on “a single alleged wrong,” Wells v. United States,
420 F.3d 1343, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005): nonpayment of his
alleged share of the Amgen–United States settlement
agreement. “[T]here was a single agreement that was [al-
legedly] breached on a single occasion,” a circumstance out-
side the continuing-claims doctrine. Tamerlane, 550 F.3d
at 1146. 1
For those reasons, we agree with the Claims Court that
Mr. May’s Fifth Amendment takings claim and his contract
claims are time-barred by § 2501.
B
Mr. May’s complaint also alleges other constitutional
claims (violations of the First Amendment and of a consti-
tutional right to equal protection of the laws 2), a tort claim
of professional negligence, and a § 1983 claim. To the ex-
tent that these claims arise from the Amgen–United States
settlement agreement, the claims are time-barred for the
reasons explained above. And to the extent that these
claims are not time-barred—e.g., to the extent that they
1 Mr. May calls our attention to the Supreme Court’s
recent decision in Tyler v. Hannepin County, Minnesota,
No. 22-166, 2023 WL 3632754 (U.S. May 25, 2023). The
decision in Tyler, though it involves a takings claim, does
not involve a statute-of-limitations issue, and it does not
alter the analysis of the present case.
2 Although Mr. May invokes the Fourteenth Amend-
ment’s Equal Protection Clause, that clause does not re-
strict the federal government. We treat the complaint as
invoking the Fifth Amendment, which the Supreme Court
has long held to impose an equal-protection obligation on
the federal government. See, e.g., Weinberger v. Wiesen-
feld, 420 U.S. 636, 638 n.2 (1975).
Case: 23-1124 Document: 38 Page: 11 Filed: 06/06/2023
MAY v. US 11
arise from alleged actions by the United States after the
execution of the Amgen–United States settlement agree-
ment, see, e.g., U.S. Supp. Appx. 437 ¶ 83 (“Plaintiff May
. . . is unduly harassed continually [as] a whistle-
blower/snitch to date.”)—the Claims Court lacks subject-
matter jurisdiction over the claims for substantive reasons.
As relevant here, the Claims Court could have subject-
matter jurisdiction over Mr. May’s claims only if they come
within the Tucker Act, which confers jurisdiction on the
Claims Court only over “any claim against the United
States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of
Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or
upon any express or implied contract with the United
States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases
not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). But for a
plaintiff’s claim to come within the Tucker Act, which does
not itself provide a cause of action for money damages, the
“plaintiff must identify a separate source of substantive
law that creates the right to money damages”—i.e., a so-
called “money-mandating” source of law for the alleged
wrong. Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed.
Cir. 2005); see Maine Community Health Options v. United
States, 140 S. Ct. 1308, 1328–29 (2020). At the pleading
stage, a substantive law is money mandating if the plaintiff
makes a non-frivolous allegation that the law “can fairly be
interpreted as mandating compensation by the [United
States].” United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290
(2009); see Maine Community, 140 S. Ct. at 1327–28.
Except for his takings claim, addressed above, Mr. May
has not alleged a money-mandating provision of the Con-
stitution. The First Amendment, we have held, does not
mandate the payment of money for a violation, see United
States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 887 (Fed. Cir. 1983); nor
does the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, Le-
Blanc, 50 F.3d at 1028. The Claims Court likewise lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. May’s tort claim be-
cause tort claims are outside the Tucker Act. See Brown v.
Case: 23-1124 Document: 38 Page: 12 Filed: 06/06/2023
12 MAY v. US
United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[The
Claims Court] lacks jurisdiction over tort actions against
the United States.” (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); Keene
Corp v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 214 (1993))).
Finally, the Claims Court does not have subject-matter
jurisdiction over Mr. May’s § 1983 claim against the United
States. That is so at least because he has not made any
allegation passing the jurisdictional threshold of non-friv-
olousness, see Shapiro v. McManus, 577 U.S. 39, 45 (2015);
Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 683 (1946), that the federal gov-
ernment has committed a wrong “under color of any stat-
ute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State
or Territory or the District of Columbia,” 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
to which § 1983 is limited. Accordingly, there is no juris-
dictionally adequate allegation that § 1983 is money-man-
dating as to the United States here. In addition, the
jurisdictional grant to district courts for much if not all of
the scope of § 1983, see 28 U.S.C. § 1343, precludes Tucker
Act jurisdiction at least within that scope. See United
States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6, 12 (2012) (explaining that the
“Tucker Act is displaced . . . when a law assertedly impos-
ing monetary liability on the United States contains its
own judicial remedies”). Mr. May has not identified how,
if at all, his particular § 1983 claim could avoid that prin-
ciple.
III
We have considered Mr. May’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm the Claims Court’s dismissal of Mr. May’s complaint
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
No costs.
AFFIRMED