Background
Rashid El Malik brought a breach-of-contract claim arising from his dissatisfaction with home improvements connected to a Veteran Readiness and Employment award. In 2024, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on both grounds.
El Malik later sought relief from the judgment, arguing that an intervening decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals established the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction. The trial court denied that motion. Because El Malik had repeatedly relitigated issues concerning the award, an earlier filing restriction required him to obtain leave from the Federal Circuit before appealing.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Circuit granted El Malik leave to appeal but summarily affirmed the denial of post-judgment relief. The panel concluded that the appeal presented no substantial question about its outcome.
The court did not resolve the force of El Malik’s jurisdictional argument. It held that the motion was properly denied because the earlier dismissal rested on an independent ground—failure to state a claim—that the Federal Circuit had already affirmed and that the asserted jurisdictional development did not disturb.
Key Takeaways
- The Federal Circuit granted the required permission to appeal despite El Malik’s filing restriction.
- An asserted change affecting jurisdiction did not justify reopening the judgment because an independently sufficient merits ground supported the dismissal.
- The court summarily affirmed because no substantial question existed as to the appeal’s outcome, and each side was ordered to bear its own costs.
Why It Matters
The nonprecedential order illustrates that post-judgment relief generally cannot alter the result when a prior dismissal rests on multiple grounds and the movant challenges only one of them. Even if a later development arguably affects jurisdiction, an undisturbed failure-to-state-a-claim ruling may remain independently dispositive.