Santos v. United States District Court

1
26-cv-00087-JO-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ELLIOTT J. SANTOS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
Defendant.
Case No.: 26-cv-00087-JO-AHG
MINUTE ORDER
On January 7, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Elliot J. Santos filed a complaint against the
United States District Court, alleging claims of patent infringement. Mr. Santos also filed
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) accompanied by an affidavit listing his
income and assets. Dkt. 4. Upon reviewing Mr. Santos’ affidavit regarding his financial
condition, the Court GRANTS his IFP motion [Dkt. 4]. 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Andrews v.
Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007).
Because the Court grants Mr. Santos leave to proceed IFP, it screens his complaint
pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court may sua sponte dismiss a case
Case 3:26-cv-00087-JO-AHG Document 5 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-00087-JO-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
if it is “frivolous, malicious, fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
seek[s] monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.”
“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its
agencies from suit.” F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). 	The only waiver for
patent infringement claims against the Government is 28 U.S.C. 1948(a), which vests
exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims. See Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v.
United States, 275 U.S. 331, 343 (1928) (noting purpose of the act is “to limit the owner
of the patent and his assigns and all claiming through or under him to suit against the United
States in the Court of [Federal] Claims”); see also FastShip, LLC v. United States, 131 Fed.
Cl. 592, 607 (2017) (“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), the United States has waived
sovereign immunity and vested in this court [the Court of Federal Claims] exclusive
jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement claims against the federal government[.]”).
Because Mr. Santos’ sole claim is against an instrumentality of the federal
government for patent infringement, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this action.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Mr. Santos’ complaint [Dkt. 1] in its entirety for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. The case is dismissed without prejudice but without leave to
amend in the Southern District of California. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close
the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 30, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00087-JO-AHG Document 5 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2