DocketNumber: 17-1449
Judges: Victor J. Wolski
Filed Date: 5/9/2018
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
ORIGINAL 3Jn tbe Wniteb ~tates ~ourt of jfeberal ~laitns No. l 7-1449C (Filed May 9, 2018) NOT FOR PUBLICATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * FILED * MAY - 9 2018 * ANGELIQUE NICHOLE * U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS BANKSTON, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER On October 4, 2017, plaintiff, Angelique Nichole Bankston, filed a complaint with this court. ECF No. 1. The complaint was subsequently amended on November 6, 2017. ECF No. 9. Both complaints alleged t he violation of supposed contracts between plaintiff and the United States government. On November 22, 2017, the government filed a motion to dismiss this case for failure to state a cognizable claim falling within this Court's jurisdiction. ECF No. 12. Miss Bankston failed to file a response to the government's motion. Recognizing her pro se status, the Court issued an order on January 8, 2018, giving Ms. Bankston an additional twenty-eight days to respond. ECF No. 13. Miss Bankston then filed a paper with this Court, explaining that she never received a copy of th e government's motion to dismiss this case. ECF No. 14. The Court directed t hat a copy of the motion be forwarded to Ms. Bankston and gave her additional time to file a response. ECF No. 15. On February 21, 2018, Ms. Bankston filed yet another paper, stating that she still had not received a copy of the government's motion. ECF No. 17. The Clerk's Office promptly forwarded another copy to Ms. Bankston, which USPS tracking shows was delivered on March 1, 2018. Miss Bankston's deadline to file a response came and went. On March 27, 2018, this Court issued another order, giving Ms. Bankston until April 10, 2018, to file a response. ECF No. 18. The Court has received no such response. 7017 1450 DODD 1346 4865 Given Ms. Bankston's failure to r espond to the government's motion to dismiss this case, despite this Court's numerous efforts to accommodate h er , this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of t he Rules of t he United States Court of Federal Claims. The government's motion to dismiss this case is DENIED AS MOOT. t IT IS SO ORDERED. t Due to the prose status of Ms. Bankston, who is incarcerated in a federal facility in Florida, the Court h as taken the additional step of reviewing her papers to determine if a basis for our jurisdiction h as been properly alleged. It h as not. Our court is not empowered to review the decisions of other federal courts, see Joshua v. United States,17 F.3d 378
, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994), and our jurisdiction over contracts requires factual allegations plausibly identifying an actual agr eement entered into with a federal official authorized to bind the federal government. See Hanlin v. United States, 316 F .3d 1325, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Rather t h an allege facts showing the existence of a contract, plaintiff makes bare reference to maritime- contract law and t he Uniform Commercial Code, which is plainly insufficient to establish jurisdiction. -2-