BANKSTON v. USA, No. 1:2017cv01449 - Document 19 (Fed. Cl. 2018)
Court Description: UNREPORTED OPINION: DENYING as MOOT 12 Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) and (6); This case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Victor J. Wolski. U.S. Certified Mail Tracking # 7017 1450 0000 1346 4865(vds) Service on parties made.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
BANKSTON v. USA Doc. 19 ORIGINAL 3Jn tbe Wniteb of jfeberal No. l 7-1449C (Filed May 9, 2018) NOT FOR PUBLICATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ANGELIQUE NICHOLE BANKSTON, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * FILED MAY - 9 2018 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 maritimecontract law and t he Uniform Commercial Code, which is plainly insufficient to establish jurisdiction. -2-
]]>
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.
