Timothy R. Petrozzi v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TIMOTHY R. PETROZZI,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1041
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-01332-AOB, Judge Armando O. Bonilla.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Timothy R. Petrozzi appeals from the final judgment of
the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his
complaint. Mr. Petrozzi moves for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and appointment of counsel,
ECF No. 7. The United States moves to summarily affirm.
ECF No. 5. Mr. Petrozzi responds. ECF Nos. 8, 10, and 13.
Case: 25-1041 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 01/10/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

PETROZZI v. US 2
In 2018, as part of criminal proceedings brought by the
State of Washington, Mr. Petrozzi was the subject of a com-
petency restoration order and an involuntary medication
order.1 He eventually pled guilty and was sentenced to 12
months in state prison. After his release, Mr. Petrozzi filed
several unsuccessful lawsuits in federal district court chal-
lenging those proceedings, alleging genocide, conspiracy,
and violation of constitutional and civil rights.2
Following those proceedings, Mr. Petrozzi filed this
suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims, naming
as defendants the United States, the President, several
United States agencies, the Washington state senate and
governor, and the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. The sprawling complaint alleges, among
other things, “medical” and “legal malpractice” based on in-
voluntary medication, “trespass,” and “negligence,” stem-
ming from his criminal proceedings. Complaint at 4–5.
And the complaint asserts violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
several criminal codes, the First, Second, Fourth, Eighth,
Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitu-
tion, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Id. at 22–23.
On September 9, 2024, the Court of Federal Claims
granted Mr. Petrozzi leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
dismissed the complaint for failing “to allege any coherent
claims within the jurisdiction of” that court, and certified
that any appeal from that dismissal would not be taken in
good faith. ECF No. 1-2 at 8–9 (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3)). Mr. Petrozzi nevertheless filed this appeal.
1 See In re Petrozzi, 6 Wash. App. 2d 1016, 2018 WL
5978005, at *1–2 (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2018).
2 See Petrozzi v. Inslee, No. C20-6000BHS, 2021 WL
2012587, at *1 (W.D. Wash. May 20, 2021) (noting the fil-
ing of 77 such complaints).
Case: 25-1041 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 01/10/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

PETROZZI v. US 3
The United States now moves to summarily affirm, argu-
ing that the trial court’s jurisdictional decision is clearly
correct. Mr. Petrozzi’s response reiterates his arguments
that the involuntary “administration of medications” while
he was in “Treatment Facility” was a “Rights Deprivation
18 usc 1983.” ECF No. 10 at 1, 3.
Summary affirmance is appropriate 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). As relevant here, the jurisdiction of the
Court of Federal Claims is limited to monetary damages
claims against the Federal Government that do not sound
in tort. 28 U.S.C. § 1491. The trial court was clearly cor-
rect that Mr. Petrozzi’s allegations fall outside of that lim-
ited jurisdiction because they were either not aimed at the
United States, sounded in tort, were attempts to collater-
ally attack other court proceedings,3 relied on sources of
law that could not fairly be interpreted as money
3 See Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United States, 782
F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Binding precedent estab-
lishes that the Court of Federal Claims has no jurisdiction
to review the merits of a decision rendered by a federal dis-
trict court.”).
Case: 25-1041 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 01/10/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

PETROZZI v. US 4
mandating,4 or, as to his alleged § 1983 violations, could
only be brought in federal district court.5
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) ECF Nos. 2 and 7 are denied.
(2) ECF No. 5 is granted. The judgment of the United
States Court of Federal Claims is summarily affirmed.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
January 10, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
4 See United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 886–
87 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (First and Fifth Amendment Due Pro-
cess); Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623–24 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (Fourth Amendment); Trafny v. United States,
503 F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Eighth Amendment);
Patterson v. United States, 218 F. App’x 987, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (Tenth Amendment); LeBlanc v. United States, 50
F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Fourteenth Amendment).
5 See 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (providing district courts with
jurisdiction over claims alleging civil rights violation); see
also Coleman v. United States, 635 F. App’x 875, 877–78
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The Court of Federal Claims cannot hear
Coleman’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”).
Case: 25-1041 Document: 14 Page: 4 Filed: 01/10/2025

-- 4 of 4 --