Kenneth Leslie Caldwell v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
KENNETH LESLIE CALDWELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1122
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-00320-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Kenneth Leslie Caldwell appeals from the judgment of
the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his
complaint. The United States moves for summary affir-
mance. ECF No. 12. Mr. Caldwell opposes, submits his
opening brief, and moves for various relief, including
“emergency relief to be determined by [the] court,” ECF No.
6 at 1; for expedited restitution of at least $80,000, ECF No.
Case: 24-1122 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 02/05/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

CALDWELL v. US 2
8-1 at 3; summary judgment, ECF No. 10-1; and
“$1,000,000 as a permanent injunction,” ECF No. 17-1 at 2.
Mr. Caldwell previously sued the Judicial Administra-
tion of Idaho and Idaho-based media companies in Idaho
state court. After that suit was unsuccessful, he filed the
underlying complaint at the Court of Federal Claims, al-
leging the Judicial Administration of Idaho as well as other
state and federal officials and entities violated various
laws, including provisions of U.S. Code title 18 (criminal
code); U.S. Code title 42 (civil rights); 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–254;
the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Four-
teenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and antitrust
laws. Mr. Caldwell also requested that the Court of Fed-
eral Claims compel the Patent and Trademark Office to
grant him intellectual property rights to 28 “ideas” he iden-
tified in his complaint. The Court of Federal Claims
granted the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
This appeal followed.
The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, limits the jurisdic-
tion of the Court of Federal Claims to claims for money
damages against the United States based on sources of sub-
stantive law that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating
compensation by the Federal Government.” United States
v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) (citation omit-
ted). For the reasons explained in the Court of Federal
Claims’s Opinion and Order, none of the sources of law
identified in the complaint were shown to create a right to
monetary damages against the United States.* And while
* Although the complaint generally referenced the
Fifth Amendment, the Court of Federal Claims correctly
explained that Mr. Caldwell did not allege any taking of
property that could plausibly support a claim under the
Takings Clause and the trial court lacks jurisdiction over
any alleged violation of the Due Process Clause. See Le-
Blanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Case: 24-1122 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 02/05/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

CALDWELL v. US 3
28 U.S.C. § 1498 authorizes the trial court to award dam-
ages for the use or manufacture of a covered patent or cop-
yright by or on behalf of the United States, Mr. Caldwell’s
complaint failed to identify any issued patent or copyright
to support such a claim.
We have considered Mr. Caldwell’s arguments in his
brief, but find they fail to a raise a non-frivolous basis for
error. Accordingly, summary affirmance is appropriate
here because there is no “substantial question regarding
the outcome” of the appeal. Joshua v. United States, 17
F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The United States’s motion for summary affir-
mance is granted, and the judgment of the United States
Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.
(2) All other motions are denied.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
February 5, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-1122 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 02/05/2024

-- 3 of 3 --