CRAWFORD v. USA, No. 1:2019cv00522 - Document 16 (Fed. Cl. 2021)
Court Description: UNREPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER denying as moot 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying as moot 8 Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Stephen S. Schwartz. (cmc) Service on parties made; plaintiff served via U.S. mail. (dls)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CRAWFORD v. USA Doc. 16 In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-522T (Filed: February 19, 2021) NOT FOR PUBLICATION *************************************** KENNETH PAUL CRAWFORD, JR., * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * *************************************** MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, appearing pro se, sues the United States on various theories arising from disputes with the Internal Revenue Service. However, Plaintiff has neither paid the required filing fee nor established grounds to proceed in forma pauperis. See Order (ECF 12). Accordingly, the case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See RCFC 41(b). Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time he filed suit. Complaint ¶¶ 2, 20 (ECF 1). As a prisoner, he moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Motion (ECF 4). But as this Court observed in a previous order, it appears that Plaintiff has since been released. See Order (ECF 12); Notice of Change of Address (ECF 10) (advising the Court of Plaintiff’s relocation to a private address). The Court therefore ordered Plaintiff to “either resubmit[] an application to proceed [in forma pauperis] which accounts for his current circumstances, or submit[] the filing fee” before March 31, 2020. Id. The Court stated that “[f]ailure to comply with this order may result in the case being dismissed for failure to prosecute under RCFC 41(b).” Id. Almost a year later, Plaintiff has taken no action. This Court may dismiss a case for failure to prosecute when the plaintiff “fails … to comply with these rules or a court order.” RCFC 41(b). Here, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an order directing him to pay the filing fee or establish grounds for proceeding in forma pauperis justifies dismissal. See, e.g., Bryant v. United States, 618 F. App’x 683, 686 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“If a party fails to pay the requisite filing fee, despite adequate notice and ample opportunity to do so, the Claims Court acts within its discretion when it dismisses the action.”). This case is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff’s original motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 4) and the government’s Dockets.Justia.com motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (ECF 8) are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Stephen S. Schwartz STEPHEN S. SCHWARTZ Judge
]]>
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.
