Keith Russell Judd v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-5113
KEITH RUSSELL JUDD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 08-CV-299,
Senior Judge Loren A. Smith
ON MOTION
Before GAJARSA, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Keith Russell Judd responds to the court's order directing him to show cause why
the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims should not be summarily
affirmed and submits various motions and submissions requesting, inter alia, to
reinstate his appeal, for the court to order production of contact lenses, for
accommodation of disabilities, for oral argument, for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
to recall the mandate, for appointment of counsel, for an extension of time, and for a
deposition.
Judd filed suit in the trial court seeking $34,262,158,366.21 in damages for an
alleged breach of a pretrial diversion agreement made with the United States Attorney's
Office (AUSA). The trial court determined that an alleged breach of contract arising from

-- 1 of 3 --

actions undertaken within the criminal justice system gives rise to an action under the
Tucker Act for damages only if the plaintiff shows that the person who made the
contract on behalf of the government had the authority to bind the government to pay
monetary damages and the contract's language provides for the payment of monetary
damages in the case of a breach by the government. See Sanders v. United States,
252 F.3d 1329, 1334-35 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The trial court determined that Judd had
failed to offer any evidence to show that the AUSA had the authority to bind the
government to pay damages. The trial court further determined that the pretrial
diversion agreement said nothing about damages in the case of a breach. Thus, the
trial court dismissed Judd's complaint and entered judgment on August 6, 2008, and
Judd appealed.
Judd's appeal was dismissed on August 29, 2008 for failure to pay the filing fee.
Judd paid the fee and moved to reinstate the appeal. Upon review of the decision of
the trial court, the court directed Judd to show cause why the judgment should not be
summarily affirmed.
Summary affirmance of a case is appropriate "when the position of one party is
so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome
of the appeal exists." Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In
this case, the trial court correctly applied Sanders and dismissed Judd's complaint.
Thus, the court reinstates the appeal solely for the purpose of summarily affirming the
judgment of the Court of Federal Claims.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
2008-5113 2

-- 2 of 3 --

(1) The appeal is reinstated and the August 6, 2008 judgment of the Court of
Federal Claims is summarily affirmed.
All pending motions are moot.
Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
FEB 6 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly
Date
cc: Keith Russell Judd
Sean B. McNamara, Esq.
s17
Jan Horbaly
Clerk FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
FEB 0 6 2009
Ali NORIA)
CLERK
2008-5113 3

-- 3 of 3 --