Quordalis V. Sanders v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
QUORDALIS V. SANDERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1784
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:26-cv-00327-TMD, Judge Thompson M. Dietz.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Determining that he was ineligible under the so-called
three-strike provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the United
States Court of Federal Claims denied prisoner Quordalis
V. Sanders’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) and subsequently dismissed his case for failure to
prosecute after Mr. Sanders did not pay the filing fee.
Mr. Sanders appeals, files his opening brief, and moves to
proceed IFP on appeal. We summarily affirm.
Case: 26-1784 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 06/26/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

SANDERS v. US 2
As we explained to Mr. Sanders in summarily affirm-
ing the Court of Federal Claims’s denial of his IFP motion
in another case, “[t]he Prison Litigation Reform Act’s ‘three
strike’ provision does not permit IFP status ‘if the prisoner
has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or de-
tained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court
of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds
that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.’” Sanders v.
United States, No. 2022-1375, 2022 WL 2298980, at *1
(Fed. Cir. June 27, 2022) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).
Here, as there, Mr. Sanders’s opening brief fails to
raise any cogent, non-frivolous argument why the Court of
Federal Claims erred in dismissing his complaint.
Mr. Sanders does not dispute he has accumulated three
strikes. Nor does Mr. Sanders appear to challenge the trial
court’s determination that he had failed to show entitle-
ment to the imminent-danger exception. Instead, his brief
consists mostly of arguments for why he should no longer
be in prison. As to the dismissal, Mr. Sanders only argues
he may not be denied IFP status because that would deny
him access to the courts to file non-frivolous legal claims,
appearing to cite Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526 (7th Cir.
2002), for support. But that decision rejects the same ar-
gument, reversing the district court’s waiver of the filing
fee. Id. at 528.
Because the Court of Federal Claims’s decision was “so
clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial ques-
tion regarding the outcome of the appeal exists,” we sum-
marily affirm. Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380
(Fed. Cir. 1994). And because he has also failed to show
entitlement to IFP status on appeal, we deny his motion.
Accordingly,
Case: 26-1784 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 06/26/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

SANDERS v. US 3
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is
summarily affirmed.
(2) All pending motions are denied.
(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
June 26, 2026
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 26-1784 Document: 8 Page: 3 Filed: 06/26/2026

-- 3 of 3 --