Case: 23-1551 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 08/16/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CEDRIC GREENE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1551
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-00014-KCD, Judge Kathryn C. Davis.
______________________
Decided: August 16, 2023
______________________
CEDRIC GREENE, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
DANIEL F. ROLAND, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before CHEN, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1551 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 08/16/2023
2 GREENE v. US
PER CURIAM.
In January 2023, Mr. Greene filed a complaint in the
United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) al-
leging the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of California violated his First Amendment rights and
committed slander by sending him mail that referred to
him as a “Vexatious Litigant.” Appx. 21. 1 The Claims
Court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over
the alleged First Amendment violations and tort claims
and dismissed the complaint. Id. Mr. Greene subse-
quently filed a motion for reconsideration to vacate the
judgment and amend his complaint, seeking to pursue a
different claim, this time for breach of an implied contract
by the United States government. Appx. 18–20. Specifi-
cally, it appears Mr. Greene claims he had an oral agree-
ment with an unnamed employee at the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to transfer a case of
his, but the Ninth Circuit instead remanded his case to dis-
trict court. Appx. 22. The proposed amended complaint
did not identify in what way the unnamed court employee
had authority to bind the government in contract, let alone
any of the other conditions for establishing an implied con-
tract. See, e.g., Lewis v. United States, 70 F.3d 597, 600
(Fed. Cir. 1995). The Claims Court denied his motion be-
cause it concluded Mr. Greene’s proposed amendment was
futile. Appx. 22–23. Mr. Greene appealed the denial of his
motion. 2
We do not discern any abuse of the Claims Court’s dis-
cretion in denying Mr. Greene’s motion. See Renda
1 “Appx.” citations are to the appendix filed concur-
rently with Appellee’s brief.
2 Mr. Greene also filed a motion we construe as a mo-
tion for change of venue. ECF No. 10. We deny his motion
but note Mr. Greene is free to file his complaint in another
appropriate court.
Case: 23-1551 Document: 12 Page: 3 Filed: 08/16/2023
GREENE v. US 3
Marine, Inc. v. United States, 509 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (explaining that both a motion for leave to
amend a complaint and a motion for reconsideration are
reviewed for abuse of discretion). We agree with the court
(Appx. 22–23) that Mr. Greene’s motion failed to describe
“a non-frivolous allegation of a contract with the govern-
ment,” Engage Learning, Inc. v. Salazar, 660 F.3d 1346,
1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis omitted), and that given
the insubstantial nature of Mr. Greene’s implied contract
allegation, the amended complaint would have been futile,
see Lewis, 70 F.3d at 603. Accordingly, the Claims Court
did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Greene’s mo-
tion.
AFFIRMED