
    Azael Dythian PERALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 2010-5145.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    Oct. 26, 2010.
    Azael Dythian Perales, Fullerton, CA, pro se.
    Jeanne E. Davidson, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendantr-Ap-pellee.
    Before LINN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
   ON MOTION

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The United States moves for summary affirmance of the July 20, 2010 order of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing Azael Dythian Perales’ petition for writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction. Perales responds and separately moves for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris.

Perales filed a document titled “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Perales’ petition, determining that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This appeal followed.

Summary affirmance of a case is appropriate “when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.Cir.1994). Here, the Court of Federal Claims correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Perales’ petition. See Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed.Cir.2002) (“[T]he habeas statute does not list the Court of Federal Claims among those courts empowered to grant a writ of habeas corpus, and the trial court therefore is without power to entertain [a] petition.”)

Because the Court of Federal Claims correctly held that the petition was not within its jurisdiction, we conclude that no substantial question regarding the outcome of this appeal exists; therefore, summary affirmance is appropriate.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The United States’ motion for summary affirmance is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(3) Perales’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot.  