Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Baker Botts, Llp

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RICKY KAMDEM-OUAFFO,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
BAKER BOTTS, LLP, ET AL.
Defendants
______________________
2026-1282
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York in No. 7:23-cv-02008-CS,
Senior Judge Cathy Seibel.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before LOURIE, CHEN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
In response to our show cause order, Ricky Kamdem-
Ouaffo urges the court to exercise jurisdiction and sum-
marily vacate the underlying district court orders. Having
considered his arguments, we dismiss.
Case: 26-1282 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 04/30/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

KAMDEM-OUAFFO v. BAKER BOTTS, LLP 2
Mr. Kamdem-Ouaffo previously filed an action with the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (SDNY) asserting, among other things, a claim
for correction of inventorship of Pepsico, Inc.’s patent. The
district court dismissed, Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Pepsico, Inc.,
314 F.R.D. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 2016), and we affirmed the dis-
trict court’s judgment, Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Pepsico, Inc., 657
F. App’x 949, 954 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Years later, Mr. Kamdem-Ouaffo filed this action, also
in the SDNY, asserting a variety of federal and state claims
against private defendants, including lawyers, banks, a
sheriff, and Pepsico. Among other things, Mr. Kamdem-
Ouaffo alleged that Pepsico’s lawyers committed fraud on
the court in his prior litigation. The district court dis-
missed the complaint. It concluded that he had failed to
plausibly allege relief under Rule 60(d) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure or under the other invoked federal au-
thorities and then declined to exercise supplemental juris-
diction over any of the asserted state claims. Mr. Kamdem-
Ouaffo appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal.
Mr. Kamdem-Ouaffo subsequently filed at the district
court a motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4), arguing that
the “dismissal was premised upon [a] jurisdictional defec-
tive theory that Plaintiff’s complaint did not have a source
of federal jurisdiction,” because, he argued, his state claims
raised a substantial question of federal law. The district
court denied the motion, finding he was attempting to re-
litigate the prior dismissal ruling. After the district court
denied reconsideration, Mr. Kamdem-Ouaffo filed a notice
of appeal from those decisions directed to this court.
In response to our show cause order, Mr. Kamdem-
Ouaffo argues we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(1) given the relation to his prior action. But we
need not reach any definitive conclusion as to whether this
court or the Second Circuit has jurisdiction because we
Case: 26-1282 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 04/30/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

KAMDEM-OUAFFO v. BAKER BOTTS, LLP 3
would dismiss regardless of how we would answer that
question.
Rule 60(b)(4) authorizes relief from a judgment only
upon a showing that the “judgment is void,” i.e., where the
district court had no jurisdiction to render the judgment or
because the judgment was premised on a violation of due
process rights. United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa,
559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010). In his motions below and in his
papers before this court, Mr. Kamdem-Ouaffo failed to
make any cogent, non-frivolous argument that would enti-
tle him to relief under that exacting standard. Because his
appeal is clearly frivolous, we find dismissal appropriate,
and, thus, would not find it in the interest of justice to
transfer to the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, even
assuming that court has jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The appeal is dismissed and any pending motion is de-
nied. Each side shall bear its own costs.
April 30, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 26-1282 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 04/30/2026

-- 3 of 3 --