Pikulin v. United States

425 F. App'x 902
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedJuly 7, 2011
Docket2011-5060
StatusUnpublished
Cited by79 cases

This text of 425 F. App'x 902 (Pikulin v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pikulin v. United States, 425 F. App'x 902 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Opinion

ON MOTION

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

William Pikulin moves to stay proceedings. The United States opposes, moves to dismiss the appeal as frivolous and in the alternative moves to summarily affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims. Pikulin moves to strike the United States’ response and also moves for sanctions. The United States opposes Pikulin’s motions.

Pikulin filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims against President Barack Obama and various government officials in connection with his loss of contracts with the City University of New York in the late 1980’s. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint, finding it lacked jurisdiction over Pikulin’s allegations that the defendants violated various criminal and civil rights laws, etc. The Court of Federal claims also found that Pikulin’s claims were time-barred. The Court of Federal Claims further found Pikulin’s complaint frivolous, noting that he had filed five related suits in the Court of Federal Claims, as well as numerous suits in the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. Pikulin appeals.

An appeal is frivolous when an appellant grounds his appeal on arguments or issues that are “beyond the reasonable contemplation of fair-minded people.” Abbs v. Principi, 237 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed.Cir.2001). Moreover, an appeal as to which “no basis for reversal in law or fact can be or is even arguably shown” is frivolous. State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc., 948 F.2d 1573, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1991). Such an appeal unnecessarily wastes the limited resources of the court as well as those of the appellee. Id.

*903 When an appellant is proceeding in for-ma pauperis, as Pikulin is in this appeal, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal ... is frivolous.... ” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In the papers submitted, Pikulin provides no basis for jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims and makes no arguments concerning the Court of Federal Claims determination that his complaint was time-barred.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The United States’ motion to dismiss the appeal as frivolous is granted.

(2) Pikulin’s motions to stay the briefing schedule and strike and for sanctions are denied. All other motions are moot.

(8) Each side shall bear its own costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Black v. United States
Federal Claims, 2025
Hvf West, LLC v. United States
Federal Claims, 2020
Perry v. United States
Federal Claims, 2020
Garcia-Gines v. United States
Federal Claims, 2017
Refaei v. United States
129 Fed. Cl. 1 (Federal Claims, 2016)
Jeun v. United States
128 Fed. Cl. 203 (Federal Claims, 2016)
Palantir Technologies Inc. v. United States
128 Fed. Cl. 21 (Federal Claims, 2016)
Diaz v. United States
127 Fed. Cl. 664 (Federal Claims, 2016)
Hood v. United States
127 Fed. Cl. 192 (Federal Claims, 2016)
Pricewaterhousecoopers Public Sector, LLP v. United States
126 Fed. Cl. 328 (Federal Claims, 2016)
Lea v. United States
126 Fed. Cl. 203 (Federal Claims, 2016)
Universal Protection Service, Lp v. United States
126 Fed. Cl. 173 (Federal Claims, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
425 F. App'x 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pikulin-v-united-states-cafc-2011.