Quordalis V. Sanders v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
QUORDALIS V. SANDERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-2014
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:26-cv-00518-MRS, Judge Molly R. Silfen.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R
Quordalis V. Sanders, who was then and remains in-
carcerated, filed a complaint in the United States Court of
Federal Claims, alleging the Clerk of the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin vi-
olated his rights in connection with handling his filings.
The Court of Federal Claims held that Mr. Sanders was
ineligible for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g) and later dismissed his complaint when
Case: 26-2014 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 07/30/2026

-- 1 of 2 --

SANDERS v. US 2
he failed to pay the docketing fee. Mr. Sanders appeals and
seeks leave to proceed IFP on appeal.
This court has twice summarily affirmed the Court of
Federal Claims’s dismissal of Mr. Sanders’s complaints for
failure to prosecute after denying him IFP status based on
§ 1915(g). See Sanders v. United States, No. 2026-1784,
2026 WL 1846615 (Fed. Cir. June 26, 2026); Sanders v.
United States, No. 2022-1375, 2022 WL 2298980 (Fed. Cir.
June 27, 2022). There, we explained that Mr. Sanders did
not dispute he had at least three actions or appeals that
were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a
claim and that he had not shown he was “under imminent
danger of serious physical injury,” § 1915(g). We see no ba-
sis for a different disposition in this appeal, which
Mr. Sanders recognizes involves “the same issues,” ECF
No. 3 at 1. As in his prior cases, the Court of Federal
Claims was clearly correct that Mr. Sanders failed to raise
any cogent argument that he was under imminent danger
of serious physical injury. Under the circumstances, we
summarily affirm. See Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d
378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Accordingly,
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
(1) The judgment is summarily affirmed.
(2) All pending motions are denied.
(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
July 30, 2026
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 26-2014 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 07/30/2026

-- 2 of 2 --