Case: 23-151 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 12/14/2023
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: SAMUEL J. MAY,
Petitioner
______________________
2023-151
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:21-cv-01496-CNL, Judge
Carolyn N. Lerner, the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado in No. 1:17-cv-00637-RM, Judge Ray-
mond P. Moore, and the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California in No. 3:10-cv-02577-
WHA, Judge William H. Alsup.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Samuel J. May petitions this court for a writ of manda-
mus directing the Attorney General to pay a percentage of
a settlement agreement reached between the United States
and Amgen, Inc. (Mr. May’s former employer) arising out
of the misbranding of certain drugs.
The history of Mr. May’s decades-long effort to obtain
a share of the settlement are detailed in May v. United
Case: 23-151 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 12/14/2023
2 IN RE: MAY
States, 2023-1124 (Fed. Cir. June 6, 2023). Briefly, after
an unsuccessful False Claims Act action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Califor-
nia 1 and unsuccessful contract and tort action in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado, 2
Mr. May filed suit in the United States Court of Federal
Claims, asserting that the government’s failure to pay him
a share of the Amgen Settlement was a breach of contract
and a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. The Court
of Federal Claims dismissed his complaint, and this court
affirmed that judgment in June 2023.
To establish entitlement to the “extraordinary remedy”
of a writ of mandamus, a petitioner is required to show,
among other things, that he has a clear and indisputable
right to relief. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.,
542 U.S.
367, 380–81 (2004). Mr. May’s petition here seeks to relit-
igate his prior actions, but he has not shown a clear and
indisputable right to do so. As we have already explained
to Mr. May, this court does not have authority to review
the judgments of the district courts in his prior actions.
May v. United States, Appeal No. 2023-2311, ECF No. 14
(Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2023) (dismissing for lack of jurisdic-
tion); May v. United States, Appeal No. 2023-2334, ECF
No. 9 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2023) (dismissing for lack of juris-
diction). And mandamus is not intended to afford Mr. May
a second bite of the appellate apple in seeking review of the
1 See United States ex rel. May v. Amgen Inc., No.
3:10-cv-02577-WHA (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2016) (denying the
motion to reopen); May v. Amgen, No. 16-16394 (9th Cir.
Mar. 2, 2017) (dismissing Mr. May’s appeal from the de-
nial).
2 United States ex rel. May v. United States,
839 F.
App’x 214 (10th Cir. 2020) (affirming the district court’s
dismissal of a contract claim and grant of summary judg-
ment against tort claims).
Case: 23-151 Document: 8 Page: 3 Filed: 12/14/2023
IN RE: MAY 3
judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. Cf. Roche v.
Evaporated Milk Ass'n,
319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943) (explaining
that mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal). Indeed,
this court has already rejected Mr. May’s materially simi-
lar requested relief. May v. United States, Appeal No.
2023-1124, ECF No. 49 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2023) (en banc)
(denying mandamus petition).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition and all pending motions are denied.
FOR THE COURT
December 14, 2023
Date
