Peter Joseph Polinski v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PETER JOSEPH POLINSKI,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1397
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-02125-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank
Horn.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before P ROST , MAYER , and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Peter Joseph Polinski appeals from the judgment of the
United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his com-
plaint and subsequent order denying his motion for recon-
sideration. The United States moves to summarily affirm
the decision or dismiss the appeal as frivolous. Mr.
Case: 26-1397 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 06/29/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

POLINSKI v. US 2
Polinski opposes and moves unopposed for leave to file a
corrected supplemental response.
Mr. Polinski’s sprawling complaint sought several bil-
lion dollars in damages for asserted torts, crimes, and var-
ious violations of his constitutional rights committed by
state and local officials. In light of his filings before this
court narrowing the issues in his case, see ECF No. 6 at 3;
ECF No. 7 at 9, we focus on Mr. Polinski’s allegations that
he tendered bonds valued at $36,000,000 to a local court
and/or state treasurer for “full settlement and closure” of a
criminal case that he alleged were “unjustly retained” and
“unlawfully seized.” ECF No. 4 at Appx57–62. The Court
of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Polinski’s alleged takings,
illegal extraction, breach of trust, and fiduciary duty
claims, finding, among other things, he failed to allege facts
or a supporting basis to attribute the actions to the United
States (either directly or through its agents).
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). The Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct
that Mr. Polinski’s claims aimed at alleged actions taken
by state and local officials did not give rise to any cogniza-
ble claims against the United States within that court’s
limited jurisdiction. Mr. Polinski’s general assertion that
the United States is “the guarantor of individual rights” is
clearly insufficient. ECF No. 4 at Appx51. We have con-
sidered Mr. Polinski’s various arguments, including his ci-
tations to several provisions in Chapter 31 of the U.S. Code
as well as 12 U.S.C. § 411, but find that he has failed to
raise any cognizable assertion of error.
Because the merits are so clear “that no substantial
question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists,” we
Case: 26-1397 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 06/29/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

POLINSKI v. US 3
grant summary affirmance. Joshua v. United States, 17
F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) Mr. Polinski’s motion for leave to file a corrected
supplemental response is granted to the extent that ECF
No. 10 is accepted as his corrected response to the motion.
(2) The United States’s motion is granted to the extent
that the decision 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.
June 29, 2026
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 26-1397 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 06/29/2026

-- 3 of 3 --