`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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.
`
`O R D E R
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
