Quordalis V. Sanders v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
QUORDALIS V. SANDERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1375
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:21-cv-02187-ZNS, Judge Zachary N. Somers.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Quordalis V. Sanders, who is incarcerated in Wisconsin
state prison, appeals from an order of the United States
Court of Federal Claims denying him leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP). He also moves for leave to proceed
IFP on appeal, ECF No. 8; for a settlement conference, ECF
No. 6; and for “intervention on remand,” ECF No. 15. The
United States moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of juris-
diction or affirm.
Case: 22-1375 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 06/27/2022

-- 1 of 3 --

SANDERS v. US 2
The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three strike” pro-
vision does not permit IFP status “if the prisoner has, on 3
or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in
any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the
United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which re-
lief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Mr. Sanders brought this suit at the Court of Federal
Claims asserting errors in his state-court conviction and
imprisonment. Mr. Sanders’s complaint included a motion
for leave to proceed IFP. On December 1, 2021, the Court
of Federal Claims ordered Mr. Sanders to pay the court’s
filing fee on or before January 3, 2022, or his complaint
would be dismissed for failure to prosecute, finding that he
could not proceed IFP under the three-strike provision. On
January 6, 2022, the Court of Federal Claims received Mr.
Sanders’s notice of appeal, which was postmarked Decem-
ber 20, 2021.
The denial of a motion to proceed IFP is a collateral
order subject to interlocutory appeal. See Roberts v. U.S.
Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950).
However, the determination of whether to allow a litigant
to proceed IFP is generally committed to the sound discre-
tion of the trial court. Fourstar v. United States, 950 F.3d
856, 858 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Here, Mr. Sanders’s opening
brief does not dispute that he had three prior strikes. Nor
does it make any cogent argument as to why the determi-
nation that he failed to demonstrate imminent danger of
serious physical harm was incorrect, let alone an abuse of
discretion. Instead, his opening brief consists, for the most
part, of assertions that he was wrongfully convicted.
Under these circumstances, we summarily affirm the
order denying Mr. Sanders’s IFP status. See Joshua v.
United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding
that summary disposition is appropriate when the position
Case: 22-1375 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 06/27/2022

-- 2 of 3 --

SANDERS v. US 3
of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no
substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal
exists).*
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The December 1, 2021, order of the Court of Fed-
eral Claims is summarily affirmed.
(2) All pending motions are denied.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
June 27, 2022
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
* We note that, on January 6, 2022, apparently una-
ware of the filing of the notice of appeal, the Court of Fed-
eral Claims dismissed the case and entered judgment after
it failed to receive the fee. The filing of an appeal ordinarily
“confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the
[trial] court of its control over those aspects of the case in-
volved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc.
Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). Accordingly, the trial court
should consider whether any order or judgment issued sub-
sequent to when the notice was deemed to have been re-
ceived must be reissued.
Case: 22-1375 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 06/27/2022

-- 3 of 3 --