Derrick M. Allen, Sr. v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DERRICK M. ALLEN, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1240
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-01246-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Derrick M. Allen, Sr. moves for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal from the judgment of the United
States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his Complaint
for lack of jurisdiction. We construe his motion, opening
brief, and response to this court’s show cause order as a
challenge to the Court of Federal Claims’s certification un-
der 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any such appeal would not
be taken in good faith. We conclude that the appeal is
Case: 25-1240 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 04/16/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

ALLEN v. US 2
frivolous and therefore dismiss. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (providing for dismissal at any time upon
determination that an appeal is frivolous).
In June 2020, Mr. Allen filed a complaint at the Court
of Federal Claims requesting compensation “in accordance
with” 39 U.S.C. § 409(h) based on alleged wrongdoing by
the United States Postal Service. In January 2022, this
court affirmed the dismissal of that Complaint for lack of
jurisdiction. See Allen v. United States, No. 2021-1631,
2022 WL 180760 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2022). Undaunted, Mr.
Allen filed this Complaint in August 2024, again seeking
compensation for alleged mishandling of his mail. The
Court of Federal Claims dismissed for want of jurisdiction
and certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal
by Mr. Allen would not be in good faith.
We dismiss the appeal as frivolous. This court previ-
ously made clear to Mr. Allen that § 409(h) was not itself a
money-mandating source of law that could give the Court
of Federal Claims jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and
that his allegations of mishandling and withholding of his
mail were claims which sounded in tort, and thus outside
the Tucker Act grant of jurisdiction. Allen, 2022 WL
180760, at *2. Nonetheless, Mr. Allen again raises the
same issues before us, without making any cogent argu-
ment why a different outcome is warranted here. Because
Mr. Allen’s arguments do not present a nonfrivolous issue
for appeal, we deny his motion to proceed in forma pau-
peris, see § 1915(a)(3), and dismiss his appeal from the
judgment under § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) ECF No. 4 is denied, and the appeal is dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Case: 25-1240 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 04/16/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

ALLEN v. US 3
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
April 16, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-1240 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 04/16/2025

-- 3 of 3 --