CBCA 7419

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: June 24, 2022 CBCA 7419 RAJ K. PATEL, Appellant, v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Respondent. Raj K. Patel, pro se, Indianapolis, IN. Robert R. Kiepura, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC; and Marina M. Kozmycz, Office of the General Counsel, Office of Administration, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges LESTER, DRUMMOND, and SHERIDAN. LESTER, Board Judge. Appellant, Raj K. Patel, filed a notice of appeal in which he alleges that he entered into a contract (or a series of contracts) with the President of the United States and that, by using “a psycho-bio-tech stress weapon” in a manner that violates his rights under the United States Constitution, the Government has breached that contract. Because contracts entered into with the President, which would be administered by the Office of Administration within the Executive Office of the President (EOP), are not subject to the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109 (2018), we lack jurisdiction to entertain Mr. Patel’s contract CBCA 7419 2 claims. We also lack jurisdiction to entertain the various non-contractual tort and constitutional claims that Mr. Patel raises. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. Background In a declaration accompanying his notice of appeal, Mr. Patel alleges that he had agreed to “live under the use of the stress weapon” while allowing the United States to observe him and that, in exchange, “the United States would make sure nothing irreversible happens to [him] and that [he] would be monetarily paid, by the United States, of harm caused by the terroristic stress weapon.” That contract is alleged to have been created through communications with President George W. Bush, acting in his official capacity, and then reaffirmed by Presidents Barack Obama, Donald J. Trump, and Joseph R. Biden through additional communications made through the website www.whitehouse.gov. The breach is alleged to have precluded Mr. Patel from reentering law school and to have caused other harm. Mr. Patel asserts that President Biden is the current contracting officer for the contract and that the “United States, Sovereign, . . . is the Defendant” in this action, although the notice of appeal, while mentioning the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, appears to focus on either the President or the White House as the contracting party. Mr. Patel also seeks damages for a taking of his intellectual property, trespass, violation of his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, and other constitutional violations. Discussion The Proper Respondent Under the Board’s rules, the proper respondent in an appeal is “the government agency whose decision, action, or inaction is the subject of an appeal, petition, or application,” 48 CFR 6101.1(b) (2020), rather than the United States as a whole. Here, the contract, as alleged, was created by the President, acting in his official capacity. The Office of Administration within the EOP would administer any such contract. 42 Fed. Reg. 62,895 (Dec. 12, 1977). Accordingly, we designate the EOP as the respondent in this appeal, although the jurisdictional analysis herein applies equally to claims involving contracts with the President or the Office of the White House.1 1 We decline Mr. Patel’s request that we caption this appeal with “The Presidency,” which is not a government agency, as the respondent. CBCA 7419 3 Jurisdiction To Entertain Appellant’s Contract Claims The Board’s jurisdiction to entertain contract claims is based upon, and is defined by, the CDA.2 The CDA “applies to any express or implied contract (including those of the nonappropriated fund activities described in sections 1346 and 1491 of title 28) made by an executive agency.” 41 U.S.C. § 7102(a).