Patel v. White House Chief of Staff

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NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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 re-
view 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 Page: 2 Filed: 08/29/2022
2 PATEL 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 deter-
mines 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 “fantas-
tic or delusional scenarios” that are “clearly baseless.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989). * Dismis-
sal 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 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 08/29/2022
PATEL v. WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF 3
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
August 29, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court