FRANCIS v. US , No. 23-2142 (Fed. Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-2142 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 10/20/2023 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ADDISA JAHRUSALEM FRANCIS, aka Jacqueline Dennis, aka Henry Francis, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2023-2142 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:23-cv-00719-EHM, Judge Edward H. Meyers. ______________________ ON PETITION AND MOTION ______________________ PER CURIAM. ORDER Addisa Jahrusalem Francis’s submissions before this court seek various relief, including leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF Nos. 3 and 7, to compel the Clerk of this Court to take certain actions, ECF No. 8, a temporary injunction, ECF No. 10, and a “writ of prohibition,” ECF No. 4-1, pg. 6. The United States responds and moves for summary affirmance. ECF No. 11. Ms. Francis replies. Case: 23-2142 Document: 13 2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/20/2023 FRANCIS v. US Ms. Francis filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims against the United States and this court’s now-former Clerk of Court, Peter Marksteiner. On May 17, 2023, the Court of Federal Claims issued an order that dismissed all claims relating to Mr. Marksteiner and directed Ms. Francis to either pay the filing fee or complete the appropriate forms to seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On June 12, 2023, Ms. Francis moved to voluntarily dismiss the remaining claims without prejudice. On June 15, 2023, the Court of Federal Claims granted the motion and then entered judgment dismissing the complaint. Ms. Francis timely appeals. We agree with the government that summary affirmance is appropriate here, because there is “no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that its jurisdiction extends only to claims against the United States, and hence the claims against Mr. Marksteiner were beyond its authority. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941). Ms. Francis also makes no cognizable argument why the Court of Federal Claims erred in granting her motion to voluntarily dismiss the remaining claims or in requiring her to pay the fee or submit the appropriate forms for it to assess whether to waive the fee. As to Ms. Francis’s request for a writ of prohibition, she appears to be requesting that the court release her husband from a maximum-security prison and release her from supervised release. See ECF No. 4-1, pgs. 8–10. In In re Francis, No. 2022-151, this court considered and rejected her petition seeking the same relief, noting that this court had already explained to her in Francis v. United States, Appeal No. 2022-1188, why the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction to grant these requests. For the same reasons, we must reject Ms. Francis’s arguments for a writ. Accordingly, Case: 23-2142 FRANCIS Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 10/20/2023 v. US 3 IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) ECF No. 11 is granted to the extent that the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims is summarily affirmed. (2) The petition and all other pending motions are denied. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT October 20, 2023 Date /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
