Case: 23-2311 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 10/23/2023
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SAMUEL J. MAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION, AMGEN USA, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees
DEBORAH ZWANY, SARA WINSLOW, PATRICK
HANNIGAN, OMOTUNDE OSUNSANMI,
Defendants
______________________
2023-2311
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado in No. 1:17-cv-00637-RM-SKC, Judge
Raymond P. Moore.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
Case: 23-2311 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 10/23/2023
2 MAY v. US
ORDER
Samuel J. May files an “amended notice of appeal” “in
support of” his “petition seeking writ of mandamus.” ECF
No. 1-2 at 1. We dismiss.
Mr. May sued Amgen USA, Inc. along with the named
federal agencies and officials in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado, “seeking millions of dol-
lars” based on contract and tort claims. United States ex
rel. May v. United States, 839 F. App’x 214, 217 (10th Cir.
2020). The district court dismissed the contract claims and
granted summary judgment against Mr. May on the tort
claims. Id. at 216. The United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court’s
judgment. Id. at 218.
Mr. May now requests that we act on his case “to make
good on the promise to compensate violative of the Fifth
Amendment Takings Clause,” or direct that he be paid
based on “implied-in-fact contract,” or “vacate order deny-
ing proposed writ of entry by the United States District
Court, District of Colorado.” ECF No. 1-2 at 1–2. We
clearly lack jurisdiction to do so. Mr. May asserts that we
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), but that is
plainly frivolous not least of which because he did not raise
a patent claim. Mr. May also cites 28 U.S.C. § 1651, but by
its own terms that provision only permits issuance of writs
“necessary or appropriate in aid of [a court’s] respective ju-
risdictions.” See Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 535
(1999) (“The All Writs Act is not an independent grant of
appellate jurisdiction.” (ellipses in original and citation
omitted)).
We also clearly lack jurisdiction to review the decision
of the Tenth Circuit, and it would not be in the interest of
justice to transfer to that court under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, as
it has already resolved the matter.
Accordingly,
Case: 23-2311 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 10/23/2023
MAY v. US 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) This matter is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
October 23, 2023 /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
Date Jarrett B. Perlow
Clerk of Court