Schiller v. United States ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                       ORIGINAL
    ]n tbe mlntteb         ~tateS'    867 F.2d 1401
    , 1403 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The court should
    liberally exercise its discretion to grant leave to amend. 
    Id. at 1403-04
    .
    First, as to plaintiffs grounds that he is a "laymen of the [federal] laws," the court
    advises that prose plaintiffs are entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings. See
    Haines v. Kerner, 
    404 U.S. 519
    , 520 (1972) (per curiam) (stating that prose plaintiffs are
    generally held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers");
    Vaizburd v. United States, 
    384 F.3d 1278
    , 1285 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that
    pleadings drafted by pro se parties "should ... not be held to the same standard as
    [pleadings drafted by] parties represented by counsel"). That being said, pro se plaintiffs
    must nevertheless meet jurisdictional requirements. Bernard v. United States, 
    59 Fed. Cl. 497
    , 499, aff d, 
    98 F. App'x 860
     (Fed. Cir. 2004) (per curiam); see also Kelley v. Dep't
    of Labor, 
    812 F.2d 1378
    , 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ("[A] court may not similarly take a
    liberal view of [a] jurisdictional requirement and set a different rule for prose litigants
    only.").
    Second, as to plaintiffs grounds that he did not "have a proper claims form," the
    court does not have such a "claims form." Instead, the court directs plaintiffs attention
    to the court's webpage, which provides relevant information for prose litigants:
    http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/pro-se-information.
    The court now turns to plaintiffs grounds that his claims are "factual and must be
    addressed as a public importance," and that they constitute "major injustices that are not
    moot." It is unclear to the court what new claims or facts plaintiff seeks to add to his
    complaint. The court nevertheless permits plaintiff the opportunity to amend his
    complaint. As such, plaintiffs motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file an amended
    complaint on or before October 2, 2015. Per RCFC 15(a)(3), defendant shall have "14
    days after service of the amended pleading" to respond.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    .ti,
    Chief Judge
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-628

Judges: Patricia E. Campbell-Smith

Filed Date: 9/18/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021