Mead v. United States

lln t\t @nitrD $ltatts @ourt of fr[rrst @tsimg
(Pro Se)
DEBRA BONILLA MEAD.
Plaintiff,
No. 18-1904C
(Filed: February 19, 2019)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff s Memorandum to Show cause (.,Memorandum,'). Docket
No. 7. Plaintiff filed the Memorandum in response to the court's January lg, 2019 show cause
order, wherein it directed Plaintiffto show why the Court should not dismiss her case
Dursuant to
RCFC 41(b) for failure to comply with the Rules of this court. Docket No. 5. In the
Memorandum, Plaintiff characterizes the present action as an "appeal" and asserts no filing
fee is
required because she paid the filing fee in the "FDC Maryland dieenbelt,', and ,,assume[d]
the
certified court Record has been transmiued to this upp"ilut" level." Mem. at 2. plaintiff also
cites RCFC 3.1(a)(3)in support ofher contention thtt no fee is required. Id. However,
Rule
3.1(a) concems transferred cases and is therefore inapplicable to the present action because
rt
was not transferred from another court. See RCFC 3.1(a) (entitled ..Transfer From
Another
Court").
Contrary to her apparent belief, Plaintiff s case is neitler an appeal nor was it transferred
^
from another court_.r Her complaint was filed as a sepaxate and freestanding action, and-as
stated in thecourt's previous order-she is thus required to either pay a fiIing fee or frle an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. plaintiffhas done neither, nor has Je
satisfied the
court that her case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Rules ofthe
court of
Federal claims. Accordingly, her complaint w l be dismissed pursuant
to RCFC 4r(b).
I The
court observes that even ifplaintiffhad successfully paid the required filing fee or had
been allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, to the extent ptaintiffs complaint ask! this Coun to
review actions taken by a Maryrand federar and/or state court, it lacks the power
to do so. See
MqD-ermott v. United states, cl. 4r2,4r3-r4 (2017) (citing colbert v. unitej States,
lio l:d,
617 F. App'x 981,983 (Fed. Cir.2015)).
?81,,8 00'{u 0081 1391 06la
Finally, the court is in possession ofa purported "Third party Motion to Intervene to
Grant a Miscaniage of Justice" filed by George Edward McDermott.2 In light of plaintiffs
failwe to comply with the Rules of the court and the resulting dismissal oih"r r^r, the clerk of
Court is directed to retum Mr. McDermott's purported motion to him unfiled.
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice
for faihue to comply with the Rules of this coufi, pursuant to RcFc 4l(b). The clerk is directed
to enter judgment accordingly. Each side shall bear its own costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ELAINE D. KAPL
" ln20l7 Mr. McDermott filed a complaint in this court seeking, among other things, an
'
injunction against the "U.S. Dishict courr for the Disrrict or cot-umuia
ila u"q,r;?'rt t"
court." McDermott, 130 Fed. cl. at 413. That complaint was dismissed for lack
Lr subjeci--ane,
jurisdiction. Id. at 413-14.
2