Elliott J. Santos v. United States District Court
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se complaint filed by Plaintiff Elliot J. Santos against the United States District Court alleging patent infringement, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted the IFP motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, noting that the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over patent infringement claims against the federal government.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis granted“Upon reviewing Mr. Santos’ affidavit regarding his financial condition, the Court GRANTS his IFP motion [Dkt. 4].” | agree with court The order recites that the plaintiff filed an affidavit listing income and assets, and the court found this sufficient to grant IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This is a standard procedural determination based on the financial affidavit provided. |
Complaint dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Mr. Santos’ complaint [Dkt. 1] in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the defendant is an instrumentality of the federal government and that the claim is for patent infringement. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), the United States has waived sovereign immunity for patent infringement only in the Court of Federal Claims, which has exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, the District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this claim. The dismissal without prejudice is appropriate as the plaintiff may refile in the correct court. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the specific statutory waiver found in 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a). It accurately cites binding Supreme Court precedent (F.D.L.C. v. Meyer) and relevant case law (Richmond Screw Anchor, FastShip) to establish that the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over patent infringement claims against the federal government. The reasoning is direct and legally sound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELLIOTT J. SANTOS, Case No.: 26-cv-00087-JO-AHG 12 Plaintiff, 13 MINUTE ORDER 14 v. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 21 On January 7, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Elliot J. Santos filed a complaint against the 22 United States District Court, alleging claims of patent infringement. Mr. Santos also filed 23 a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) accompanied by an affidavit listing his 24 income and assets. Dkt. 4. Upon reviewing Mr. Santos’ affidavit regarding his financial 25 condition, the Court GRANTS his IFP motion [Dkt. 4]. 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Andrews v. 26 Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). 27 Because the Court grants Mr. Santos leave to proceed IFP, it screens his complaint 28 pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court may sua sponte dismiss a case 1 it is “frivolous, malicious, fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 2 ||seek[s] monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 3 “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its 4 ||agencies from suit.” F.D.LC. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). The only waiver for 5 ||patent infringement claims against the Government is 28 U.S.C. 1948(a), which vests 6 || exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims. See Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. 7 || United States, 275 U.S. 331, 343 (1928) (noting purpose of the act is “to limit the owner 8 || of the patent and his assigns and all claiming through or under him to suit against the United 9 || States in the Court of [Federal] Claims”); see also FastShip, LLC v. United States, 131 Fed. 10 }/Cl. 592, 607 (2017) (“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498 (a), the United States has waived 11 |}sovereign immunity and vested in this court [the Court of Federal Claims] exclusive 12 ||jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement claims against the federal government|.]’’). 13 Because Mr. Santos’ sole claim is against an instrumentality of the federal 14 ||government for patent infringement, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this action. 15 || Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Mr. Santos’ complaint [Dkt. 1] in its entirety for lack 16 || of subject matter jurisdiction. The case is dismissed without prejudice but without leave to 17 |}amend in the Southern District of California. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close 18 || the file. 19 0 IT IS SO ORDERED.
9 Dated: January 30, 2026 — 23 Honorable Jinsook Ohta 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28