Azael Dythian Perales v. United States

# NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

AZAEL DYTHIAN PERALES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
V.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.

2010-5145

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
Claims in case no. 10-CV-460, Judge Marian Blank Horn.

## ON MOTION

Before LINN, DYK, and PROST Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.

## ORDER

The United States moves for summary affirmance of
the July 20, 2010 order of the United States Court of
Federal Claims dismissing Azael Dythian Perales' peti-
tion for writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction.

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="PERALES v. US" -->

Perales responds and separately moves for leave to pro-
ceed in forma pauperis.

Perales filed a document titled "Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed
Perales' petition, determining that it did not have subject
matter jurisdiction to grant a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. This appeal followed.

Summary affirmance of a case is appropriate "when
the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter
of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome
of the appeal exists.") Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d
378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, the Court of Federal
Claims correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over
Perales' petition. See Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d
1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("[T]he habeas statute does
not list the Court of Federal Claims among those courts
empowered to grant a writ of habeas corpus, and the trial
court therefore is without power to entertain [a] peti-
tion.")

Because the Court of Federal Claims correctly held
that the petition was not within its jurisdiction, we con-
clude that no substantial question regarding the outcome
of this appeal exists; therefore, summary affirmance is
appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The United States' motion for summary affir-
mance is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(3) Perales' motion for leave to proceed in forma pau-
peris is denied as moot.

<!-- PageBreak -->

PERALES v. US
FOR THE COURT

OCT 2 6 2010

Date

/s/ Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk

cc: Azael Dythian Perales
James R. Sweet, Esq.

$20

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
OCT 2 6 2010

JAN HORBALY
CLERK