Peter Joseph Polinski v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PETER JOSEPH POLINSKI,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1578
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-01810-EHM, Judge Edward H. Meyers.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Peter Joseph Polinski moves for an injunction. The
United States opposes and moves for summary affirmance.
Mr. Polinski has not responded to the United States’s mo-
tion but has filed a brief and a motion for an emergency
stay of a bench warrant from other proceedings.
Mr. Polinski filed this suit in the United States Court
of Federal Claims seeking more than $46 billion based on
Case: 25-1578 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 05/20/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

POLINSKI v. US 2
myriad alleged constitutional violations by state and local
entities and officials. Mr. Polinski also alleged the United
States was “liable for the actions of state employees who
violated the plaintiff’s civil rights under Title 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, acting under color of state law,” Appx 43, for its
“failure to adequately supervise and train local and state
officials,” Appx 44, and “to ensure the proper discharge of
obligations by the New York State Treasurer,” Appx61.
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Polinski’s com-
plaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Summary affirmance is appropriate because the Court
of Federal Claims’s decision “is so clearly correct as a mat-
ter of law that no substantial question regarding the out-
come of the appeal exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d
378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). That court’s jurisdiction is gen-
erally limited to a monetary claim against the United
States based on a contract, the Constitution, or other
money mandating source of federal law not sounding in
tort. 28 U.S.C. § 1491; see Boeing Co. v. United States, 119
F.4th 17, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The court was clearly correct
that Mr. Polinski failed to assert such a claim; “[section]
1983 is assuredly not available for suits against the United
States,” Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 700 n.27
(1979), and appellant has identified no federal statute or
constitutional provision that is a money-mandating source
of law for claims against the United States for actions of
state or local officials or governments or liability of the
United States for failure to supervise or train such officials.
We have considered Mr. Polinski’s arguments and conclude
that they do not raise any non-frivolous assertion of error.1
1 As for Mr. Polinski’s arguments regarding proceed-
ings in other courts, he has not identified any basis for this
court’s jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295.
Case: 25-1578 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 05/20/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

POLINSKI v. US 3
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted,
and the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is sum-
marily affirmed. Each party shall bear its own costs.
(2) All other pending motions are denied.
May 20, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-1578 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 05/20/2025

-- 3 of 3 --