BOWENS v. USA

Filing 15

Order of Dismissal granting 10 Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) and (6). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams. (dls) Copy to parties.

fiRF,""\,!i:,! F, I
t ; r;;5 ,;, ;:''d,*,i'"
lJntbe @nitcD s.tutes @ourt otJFeDersl @tsims
No. 15-1444C
(Filed: May 16,2016)

* * ** * * * * ** * * * *

rr

* ** * * * * * * * *
*

E.YAGE BOWENS,

FILED
MAY

|

6

2016

U,S. COURT OF
FEDERAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff,
v.

THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

,.* ** t *********************

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WILLIAMS,

Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to dismiss. For the reasons
stated below, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.

nu"Liroono
Plaintiff pro se E-Yage Bowens, an inmate, seeks a writ of habeas corpus "for
unconditional release," a request for admission that "Article IV courts" are not constitutional
courts but rather are "legislative courts," a "genuine and certified copy of the Delegation of
Authority Order" outlining thejurisdiction ofthe court which imposed his sentence, a request for
admission that the judge who presided over his criminal trial "does not possess life tenure and a
permanent salary" and "is incapable of exercising any portion of the judicial power," an order
requiring response to his requests for admission within 72 hours, an order that all responses be
made under penalty of perjury with "wet-ink signatures in proper color, under official seals and
in full compliance with their swom oaths," and summary affirmance for all relief sought.
Compl. 7-9.

Plaintiff alleges that he was "ceaselessly subjected to a fictitious criminal action by a
court of incompetent jurisdiction" from January 21,2011 through July 8, 2015, and that he did
not receive a fair trial due to the conduct of the presiding judges. Id. at 3. Plaintiff contends that

he is innocent ofany criminal acts, and that he has been denied his rights under the due process
clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 4.

Plaintiff filed suit in this Court on November 30, 2015, but did not pay a filing fee, nor
did Plaintiff submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On December 23,2015, the
Court ordered Plaintiffto file an application to proceed in forma pauperis by January 20, 2016, if
he wished to proceed without paying the filing fee. Order (Dec. 23, 2015). Plaintiff failed to do
so. The Court issued a second order on February 19,2016, stating that Plaintiffhad not yet filed
his application to proceed in forma pauperis, and extending the deadline for such application
until March 21, 2016. Order (Feb. 19, 2016). Again Plaintiff failed to submit either his
application to proceed in forma pauoeris or pay the Court's filing fee. Plaintiff also failed to
respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss filed on January 21,2016.
Discussion
Although pro se litigants are afforded a greater degree of leniency in procedural matters,
they are not excused from following the deadlines imposed by the rules of this Court. See
Barnes v. United Srates,l,22Fed. Cl. 581, 584 (2015). Pursuant to Rule 41(b) ofthe Rules ofthe
Court of Federal Claims, if a plaintiff fails to prosecute his case or to comply with the rules or a
court order, the Court may dismiss a plaintiffs case on its own motion. This authority is
considered an inherent power, stemming from the necessity of achieving "the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases." Whiting v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 13, 17 (2011) (intemal
citations and quotation marks omitted). Dismissal of a p1q se plaintiff s claim is 'Justified when
a party fails to pursue litigation diligently and disregards the court's rules . . .
Id. Here,
Plaintiffhas failed to pay the Court's filing fee and to file his response to Defendant's motion to
dismiss, which was due on February 22,2016. Failure to pay the Court's filing fee constitutes
grounds for dismissal. See Brown v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 795,798 (2009). Therefore, the
Court dismisses Plaintiff s complaint for failure to prosecute.r

."

Even if this Court were to permit Plaintiffs action to proceed, the suit would be subject
to dismissal for lack ofjurisdiction. Plaintiff has not alleged any conduct by any United States
employees or agencies, but rather has only named the warden of a state facility - - the Taylor
Conectional Institution, in the Florida Department of Corrections. This Court's jurisdiction is
limited to suits against the United States, and the Court does no1 have jurisdiction over claims
against state employees. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (holding that
this Court's jurisdiction "is confined to the rendition of money judgments in suits brought for
that relief against the United Srates"); Smith v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 581, 583 (2011) (citing
Moore v. Pub. Defs. Office ,76 Fed. Cl. 617, 620 (2007)).

I

Even had Plaintiff filed his application, this Court would have been constrained to deny
Under the thee strikes rule, a prisoner who has filed three or more actions in federal court
that have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim is prohibited from
proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) (2012); see also Leamine v. United States,
114 Fed. Cl.201,203 (2014). The appendix to Defendant's motion to dismiss shows that
Plaintiff has been classified as a multiple filer by the District Court and is subject to the three
strikes rule. See. e.g., Def.'s App. at 42 (listing six cases filed by Plaintiff that were dismissed
as frivolous or for failing to state a claim).

it.

Additionally, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review decisions rendered by state
courts, or to entertain criminal mattets. See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman. 460 U.5. 462,
482 (1983); Joshua v. United States, l7 F.3d 378, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Landers v. United States.
39 Fed. Cl. 297,30t (1997). Finally, this Court does not have jurisdiction over claims arising
under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendmen! as it is not money-mandating. LeBlanc v.
United States,50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed, Cir. 1995).
Conclugion
Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, The Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss
this action,

Y EI,LEN COSTER WILLIAMS