Case: 25-1240 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 04/16/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

DERRICK M. ALLEN, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2025-1240 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-01246-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________

PER CURIAM. ORDER Derrick M. Allen, Sr. moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal from the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We construe his motion, opening brief, and response to this court’s show cause order as a challenge to the Court of Federal Claims’s certification un- der 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any such appeal would not be taken in good faith. We conclude that the appeal is Case: 25-1240 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 04/16/2025

2 ALLEN v. US

frivolous and therefore dismiss. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (providing for dismissal at any time upon determination that an appeal is frivolous). In June 2020, Mr. Allen filed a complaint at the Court of Federal Claims requesting compensation “in accordance with” 39 U.S.C. § 409(h) based on alleged wrongdoing by the United States Postal Service. In January 2022, this court affirmed the dismissal of that Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. See Allen v. United States, No. 2021-1631, 2022 WL 180760 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2022). Undaunted, Mr. Allen filed this Complaint in August 2024, again seeking compensation for alleged mishandling of his mail. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for want of jurisdiction and certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal by Mr. Allen would not be in good faith. We dismiss the appeal as frivolous. This court previ- ously made clear to Mr. Allen that § 409(h) was not itself a money-mandating source of law that could give the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and that his allegations of mishandling and withholding of his mail were claims which sounded in tort, and thus outside the Tucker Act grant of jurisdiction. Allen, 2022 WL 180760, at *2. Nonetheless, Mr. Allen again raises the same issues before us, without making any cogent argu- ment why a different outcome is warranted here. Because Mr. Allen’s arguments do not present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal, we deny his motion to proceed in forma pau- peris, see § 1915(a)(3), and dismiss his appeal from the judgment under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) ECF No. 4 is denied, and the appeal is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Case: 25-1240 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 04/16/2025

ALLEN v. US 3

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

April 16, 2025 Date