KHAN v. USA

Filing 10

Order of Dismissal. Denying 9 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff action dismissed pursuant to RCFC 41(b). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Zachary N. Somers. (ab) Service on parties made.

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 21-1856 C
(Filed: October 19, 2021)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
*
MARSHALL ABBAS KHAN,
*
*
Plaintiff,
*
*
v.
*
*
THE UNITED STATES,
*
*
Defendant.
*
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
ORDER
On September 7, 2021, pro se Plaintiff, Marshall A. Khan, filed a complaint in this Court,
that had previously been filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, related to
certain actions of the Social Security Administration. 1 Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) but failed to provide complete and/or intelligible responses on
his IFP application. For example, Plaintiff denies that he has any source of income and then in
response to the question, “explain how you are paying your expenses,” Plaintiff unresponsively
states: “Uniform Commercial Code 3-149 and House Joint Resolution 192 of JUNE 5, 1933.
Please release All Proceed, products, accounts and fixtures and the order of the court to me
immediately.” ECF No. 2 at 2.
Accordingly, on September 16, 2021, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff either
to correctly complete his IFP application or pay the Court’s $402 filing fee on or before October
18, 2021, otherwise his complaint would be dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Rules of the Court
of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 6. RCFC 41(b) provides, “[i]f
the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, the court may
dismiss [the complaint] on its own motion” with the dismissal serving as “an adjudication on the
merits.” On October 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed a revised IFP application equally as unresponsive as
his original IFP application. ECF No. 9.
Pro se plaintiffs before this Court regularly comply with the Court’s filing rules that
Plaintiff here chooses to ignore. Plaintiff had ample opportunity to correct his IFP application or
Based on his filings, it is unclear whether Plaintiff is seeking relief from actions of the Social Security
Administration or attempting to appeal a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit related to the
District Court for the District of Nevada denying his IFP application. See ECF No. 1.

1

pay the Court’s filing fee, but he chose instead to do neither, thereby ignoring the Court’s
September 16th order. In addition, based on a similar failure to comply with the IFP application
requirements in the district court, Plaintiff should have been well aware of the consequences of
his failure to comply with this Court’s IFP application requirements. See Khan v. Soc. Sec.
Admin., No. 21-0003 (D. Nev. Jan. 5, 2021). For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff’s
complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice under RCFC 41(b). The Clerk shall enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Zachary N. Somers
Zachary N. Somers
Judge

2