Addisa Jahrusalem Francis, aka Jacqueline Dennis, aka Henry Francis v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.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
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
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 Page: 1 Filed: 10/20/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

FRANCIS v. US 2
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 volun-
tarily dismiss the remaining claims without prejudice. On
June 15, 2023, the Court of Federal Claims granted the mo-
tion and then entered judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ms. Francis timely appeals.
We agree with the government that summary affir-
mance 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 argu-
ment 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 hus-
band 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 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 10/20/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

FRANCIS v. US 3
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) ECF No. 11 is granted to the extent that the judg-
ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims is sum-
marily affirmed.
(2) The petition and all other pending motions are de-
nied.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
October 20, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
Jarrett B. Perlow
Clerk of Court
Case: 23-2142 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 10/20/2023

-- 3 of 3 --