Peter J. Polinski v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PETER J. POLINSKI,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1249
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-00783-EMR, Judge Eleni M. Roumel.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Peter J. Polinski appeals from the judgment of the
United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his
claims. In response to this court’s show cause order, the
United States urges the court to summarily affirm the de-
cision or dismiss the appeal as frivolous. Mr. Polinski
urges this court to proceed to briefing on his appeal.
Case: 26-1249 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 03/19/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

POLINSKI v. US 2
Mr. Polinski’s complaint asserts that he mailed a certi-
fied check for $36,000,000 to the New York State Treas-
urer. Alleging that the United States Treasury somehow
unlawfully failed to redeem the financial instrument, the
complaint claims an unlawful taking of property, violations
of various statutes, and violations of the Due Process
Clause as well as the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Thirteenth
Amendments. He further raised claims of misappropria-
tion, negligence, and embezzlement. The Court of Federal
Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a
claim, and frivolousness. Mr. Polinski now appeals.
Under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, the Court of
Federal Claims may decide only claims for money damages
against the United States based on sources of substantive
law that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compen-
sation by the Federal Government” and “not sounding in
tort.” United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290
(2009). Mr. Polinski’s tort claims and constitutional alle-
gations, aside from the alleged unlawful taking, are clearly
outside the Tucker Act.1 And to the extent his claims in-
voke a money-mandating source of law, the trial court
found that Mr. Polinski’s claims were implausible and friv-
olous on their face, and we see no basis for disturbing those
findings. Because the merits are so clear “that no substan-
tial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists,”
1 See United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 887
(Fed. Cir. 1983) (First Amendment); Brown v. United
States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Fourth Amend-
ment); Smith v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed.
Cir. 2013) (Due Process Clause); Patterson v. United States,
218 F. App’x 987, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Ninth Amendment);
Harris v. United States, 686 F. App’x 895, 899 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (Thirteenth Amendment).
Case: 26-1249 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 03/19/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

POLINSKI v. US 3
we grant summary affirmance. Joshua v. United States, 17
F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Mr. Polinski’s motion for an extension of time to file
his response is granted to the extent that ECF No. 8 pages
4–10 are accepted as his response to the show cause order.
(2) The judgment of the United States Court of Federal
Claims is summarily affirmed.
(3) All other pending motions are denied.
(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.
March 19, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 26-1249 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 03/19/2026

-- 3 of 3 --