The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
24-2072•Kevin William Cassaday v. United States
24-2072Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitOct 23, 2024
N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
KEVIN WILLIAM CASSADAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-2072
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-00550-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before P ROST , BRYSON, and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Case: 24-2072 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 10/23/2024
-- 1 of 4 --
CASSADAY v. US 2
Kevin William Cassaday moves for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. ECF No. 7.1 The United States moves for
summary affirmance. ECF No. 8. Mr. Cassaday has not
responded to the government’s motion.
On April 8, 2024, Mr. Cassaday filed a complaint at the
United States Court of Federal Claims seeking damages
and release “from the bondage & hostile incarceration,”
Compl. at 1–3. On April 23, 2024, the trial court served an
order on Mr. Cassaday at his provided address, informing
him that the action would be dismissed if he did not pay
the court’s filing fee or move for leave to waive the fee by
May 10, 2024. On May 17, 2024, not having heard from
Mr. Cassaday, the trial court dismissed the action under
Court of Federal Claims Rule 41(b), which permits dismis-
sal if “the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with” a
“court order” or the “rules,” including the payment of the
filing fee.2
1 ECF No. 7 replaces Mr. Cassaday’s previous mo-
tion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The
court takes no action on ECF No. 2.
2 The Court of Federal Claims explained that it
would alternatively dismiss because the complaint—alleg-
ing civil rights violations by the Michigan state judicial sys-
tem—failed to raise any claim over which the court had
jurisdiction to grant relief. That alternative basis for dis-
missal also appears clearly correct. See United States v.
Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) (explaining that
to invoke jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims under
the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a source of law
that can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation
by the Federal Government); May v. United States, 534 F.
App’x 930, 933 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Mr. May likewise cannot
sue in the Claims Court under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 or 1982.
Nothing in those provisions is fairly read to impose a
Case: 24-2072 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 10/23/2024
-- 2 of 4 --
CASSADAY v. US 3
We agree that summary affirmance is appropriate
here, because there is “no substantial question regarding
the outcome of the appeal.” Joshua v. United States, 17
F3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We review a dismissal under
Rule 41(b) only for abuse of discretion. Claude E. Atkins
Enters. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1180, 1183 (Fed. Cir.
1990). Here, the Court of Federal Claims acted well within
its discretion in dismissing the action after notifying Mr.
Cassaday and giving him several weeks to pay or move to
waive the fee.3 See Bryant v. United States, 618 Fed. App’x
683, 686 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“If a party fails to pay the requi-
site filing fee, despite adequate notice and ample oppor-
tunity to do so, the Claims Court acts within its discretion
when it dismisses the action, just as it did in this case.”).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The United States’s motion is granted. The United
States Court of Federal Claims’s decision is affirmed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
money-mandating obligation on the United States, or at
least not one enforceable under the Tucker Act.”).
3 The docket indicates that service of the order was
sent to Mr. Cassaday’s provided address and refused twice.
As the trial court correctly noted, Mr. Cassaday never no-
tified the trial court of a change or correction of address.
Case: 24-2072 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 10/23/2024
-- 3 of 4 --
CASSADAY v. US 4
(3) All other pending motions are denied.
October 23, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-2072 Document: 9 Page: 4 Filed: 10/23/2024
-- 4 of 4 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.