Dr. Ahmad Aljindi, proceeding pro se, has repeatedly sued the United States in various courts alleging that the government stole his artificial intelligence technology without just compensation. After his claims were dismissed in the District Court and the Court of Federal Claims, and those dismissals were affirmed by the Federal Circuit in 2025, Dr. Aljindi returned to the Claims Court in July 2025. He filed a motion under Rule 60(b) seeking to vacate the judgment, alleging a pattern of judicial crimes and conspiracy. The Claims Court denied the motion as untimely and frivolous. Citing Dr. Aljindi's history of repetitive pleadings and the burden his filings placed on the court, the Claims Court entered an anti-filing injunction. This order forbade Dr. Aljindi from filing new complaints unless he was represented by counsel or obtained permission from the Chief Judge. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. Dr. Aljindi appealed to the Federal Circuit and moved to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Federal Circuit reviewed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion and the imposition of the anti-filing injunction for abuse of discretion. The court treated Dr. Aljindi's motion to proceed in forma pauperis as a challenge to the Claims Court's certification that the appeal was frivolous. Under the standard established in Anders v. California, an appeal is frivolous if it presents no legal points arguable on their merits. The court found that Dr. Aljindi's appeal was frivolous on three grounds, which were subsumed into the determination of frivolousness. First, regarding the Rule 60(b) motion, the court explained that an adverse judgment may rest on various bases, including jurisdictional issues or preclusion, which do not require questioning the facts alleged. Rule 60(b) provides a narrow set of grounds for relief from judgment, and it does not allow a litigant to assume the truth of their factual assertions after a failed appeal to obtain relief. Second, regarding the anti-filing injunction, Dr. Aljindi claimed the order was motivated by religious animus. The court found no evidence of bias, noting that the dismissal of his claims was justified on the merits and that the injunction was a proper response to his pattern of vexatious litigation and waste of court resources. Third, because the appeal was frivolous, the Claims Court's certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) was not in error. Consequently, the appeal must be dismissed regardless of whether Dr. Aljindi pays the docketing fee.
The appeal is terminated without further review. The Claims Court's anti-filing injunction remains in full force, meaning Dr. Aljindi cannot file new complaints in the Court of Federal Claims unless he is represented by counsel or obtains specific permission from the Chief Judge. The decision reinforces that litigants cannot bypass final judgments by relitigating the same facts under Rule 60(b) and that courts may impose strict filing restrictions on those who engage in repetitive, baseless litigation.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download