Ralph Hernandez v. United States

N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RALPH HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant
JEFFREY HOUT,
Plaintiff
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1248
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
Claims in No. 1:24-cv-01034-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.
______________________
Decided: August 11, 2025
______________________
R ALPH HERNANDEZ , Wasilla, AK, pro se.
A NNE DELMARE , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by E RIC
P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, Y AAKOV R OTH .
______________________
Case: 25-1248 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 08/11/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

HERNANDEZ v. US 2
P ER C URIAM .
Ralph Hernandez appeals the dismissal of his action
in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) for
failure to prosecute.1 We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Rules of the Court of
Federal Claims (“RCFC”), the Claims Court may dismiss
a case on its own motion “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prose-
cute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” We
review a dismissal pursuant to RCFC 41(b) for abuse of
discretion. Kadin Corp. v. United States, 782 F.2d 175,
176 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We also review a trial court’s time-
liness determination for abuse of discretion. See NAACP
v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 365–66 (1973).
We see no abuse of discretion by the Claims Court in
this case. Incarcerated pro se plaintiff Mr. Hernandez
filed his Complaint in the Claims Court alleging “fraud
and obstruction of justice” “against Alaska’s Governor.”
S.A. 1, 4–5.2 On July 12, 2024, the Claims Court, “sus-
pect[ing] it lack[ed] jurisdiction over [Mr. Hernandez]’s
claims,” ordered Mr. Hernandez to show cause as to why
his case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3). S.A. 17–18.
Specifically, the Claims Court required Mr. Hernandez to,
by August 12, 2024, “identify which source or sources of
money-mandating law he is invoking, identify how his
claims are against the United States, and explain why
[the Claims Court] has jurisdiction over this case.” S.A.
18. As of September 23, 2024, Mr. Hernandez still had
1 Today, we also issue an opinion in a companion
appeal, Hout v. United States, No. 25-1247 (Fed. Cir.),
where essentially the same allegations are made.
2 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix includ-
ed with the government’s informal brief.
Case: 25-1248 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 08/11/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

HERNANDEZ v. US 3
not filed a response to the show cause order that ex-
plained why the Claims Court has jurisdiction over his
claims. S.A. 21–22.
Although Mr. Hernandez is proceeding pro se, the
show cause order was unambiguous and clearly directed
him to file a response explaining the jurisdictional basis
for his case by the stated deadline. S.A. 18. When Mr.
Hernandez failed to respond by the initial deadline, the
Claims Court afforded Mr. Hernandez an additional
opportunity to respond, extending the deadline to October
7, 2024, and warned Mr. Hernandez that if he still failed
to file a response, the court “will have no choice but to
dismiss [his] Complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant
to RCFC 41(b).” S.A. 21–22. There is no dispute that
Mr. Hernandez’s next filing was not received by the
Claims Court until October 25, 2024—eighteen days after
the deadline, and a day after the Claims Court dismissed
the action and directed that judgment be entered. Appel-
lee’s Informal Br. 3; Informal Reply Br. 7.3
We hold that the Claims Court did not abuse its dis-
cretion in determining that Mr. Hernandez failed to
timely file a response to the show cause order. Because
that failure is dispositive, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
C OSTS
No costs.
3 We cite to the ECF page numbers.
Case: 25-1248 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 08/11/2025

-- 3 of 3 --