Case: 22-1195 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 04/04/2022
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ALEXANDER CAMERON,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1195
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:21-cv-01779-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Alexander Cameron, who is incarcerated in Virginia
state prison, appeals from the judgment of the United
States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint
for failure to pay the docketing fee. He also moves for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and asks the court to
appoint him counsel. We summarily affirm.
Case: 22-1195 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 04/04/2022
2 CAMERON v. US
The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act’s “three strike” pro-
vision at the center of this case precludes courts from
granting IFP “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occa-
sions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,
brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States
that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, ma-
licious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
By the time Mr. Cameron filed his complaint in this
case seeking his “immediate release from prison,” and chal-
lenging the basis for his conviction, he had already accu-
mulated more than three strikes. See Cameron v. Moore,
No. 1:21-cv-00463, slip op. at 1 n.1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 29, 2021)
(collecting cases). Mr. Cameron nonetheless moved for IFP
and filed an additional submission entitled “motion to stop
kidnap/murder conspiracy,” in which he asserted that his
imprisonment was the result of a conspiracy and asked the
court to “put a stop to this conspiracy, which is sure to cul-
minate in murder if this court do[es] otherwise.” Motion at
2, 3, Cameron v. United States, No. 1:21-cv-01779 (Fed. Cl.
Oct. 28, 2021), ECF No. 13.
The Court of Federal Claims denied Mr. Cameron’s IFP
motion. Based on his prior strikes, the court found that
Mr. Cameron could only proceed IFP if he demonstrated
that he was under imminent danger of serious physical in-
jury. On that issue, the court found that Mr. Cameron
“fails to show any danger other than the incarceration it-
self, which is not sufficient to” show that he is under “im-
minent danger of serious physical injury.” Cameron v.
United States, No. 1:21-cv-01779, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cl. Oct.
28, 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
When Mr. Cameron then failed to timely pay the docketing
fee, the court dismissed for lack of prosecution. Mr. Cam-
eron now appeals.
Case: 22-1195 Document: 12 Page: 3 Filed: 04/04/2022
CAMERON v. US 3
Having considered the briefs, the court concludes that
the parties’ positions here are so clear as to warrant sum-
mary action. See Joshua v. United States,
17 F.3d 378, 380
(Fed. Cir. 1994). Mr. Cameron has not raised any non-friv-
olous contention that the trial court abused its discretion
in denying his IFP motion or dismissing his complaint after
failure to timely pay the fee. See Fourstar v. United States,
950 F.3d 856, 858 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (denial of IFP status re-
viewed for abuse of discretion). In particular, he raises no
cogent argument why his submissions before the trial court
set forth facts capable of reasonably inferring that he was
in danger of imminent physical injury. Instead, Mr. Cam-
eron’s submissions before this court consist almost entirely
of assertions for why he believes he was wrongfully con-
victed and should not be imprisoned.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is
summarily affirmed.
(2) All pending motions are denied.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
April 4, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
