Danielle Stephens v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DANIELLE STEPHENS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-2028
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-00730-KCD, Judge Kathryn C. Davis.
______________________
Decided: February 5, 2025
______________________
D ANIELLE STEPHENS , Tulsa, OK, pro se.
D ANIEL H OFFMAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, D EBORAH ANN BYNUM , P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
Before T ARANTO, STOLL , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-2028 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 02/05/2025

-- 1 of 6 --

STEPHENS v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Danielle Stephens appeals the decision of the Court of
Federal Claims dismissing her complaint without preju-
dice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the
Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims. Be-
cause the Court of Federal Claims did not abuse its discre-
tion in dismissing Ms. Stephens’ complaint, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On May 7, 2024, Ms. Stephens, proceeding pro se, filed
a complaint making various allegations against the United
States related to her mortgage, the loss of her home follow-
ing mortgage default, and subsequent credit-related issues,
as well as allegations that, because she identifies as a
Cherokee, the United States owed her certain duties. At
the time she filed her complaint, Ms. Stephens neither paid
the required filing fee nor filed an application to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP).
On May 9, 2024, the Court of Federal Claims issued a
“Notice of Filing Fee Due” to Ms. Stephens, advising her
that she either needed to pay the filing fee or file a complete
IFP motion. SAppx 9.1 The notice stated that “[i]f the
proper fee or motion is not received, this case may be sub-
ject to dismissal.” Id. On May 10, 2024, the court ordered
Ms. Stephens to either pay the filing fee or request author-
ization to proceed IFP. The court gave her thirty days from
the date of the order to comply. The order informed
Ms. Stephens that, if she failed to do so, “this action shall
be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute un-
der Rule 41 of the Rules of the United States Court of Fed-
eral Claims [(RCFC)].” SAppx 10.
1 “SAppx” refers to the Supplemental Appendix filed
by the Government with its Informal Response Brief, ECF
No. 16.
Case: 24-2028 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 02/05/2025

-- 2 of 6 --

STEPHENS v. US 3
Ms. Stephens did not pay the filing fee or submit an
IFP application and instead filed a Motion to Overturn
Memorandum with Affidavit of Truth, arguing that “[t]he
Judge has acted outside of the Courts [sic] jurisdiction.”
SAppx 13. On June 4, 2024, the Court of Federal Claims
denied the motion, explaining that the court was “duly au-
thorized to require the payment of fees to initiate suit,” and
“[a] plaintiff must pay the fees at the time she files the com-
plaint, unless the plaintiff seeks IFP status.” SAppx 21
(citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1926; U.S. Court of Federal
Claims, Sched. of Fees (Dec. 1, 2023); RCFC 77.1(c)). The
order informed Ms. Stephens that, if she failed to comply
with the court’s May 10 order, “this action shall be dis-
missed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under
Rule 41.” Id.
On June 18, 2024, the Court of Federal Claims issued
an order dismissing Ms. Stephens’ complaint without prej-
udice. The court explained that Ms. Stephens failed to ei-
ther pay the required filing fee or file an IFP application by
the court-set deadline of June 10, 2024, despite multiple
warnings. The court further explained that RCFC 41 al-
lows it to dismiss a case sua sponte “[i]f the plaintiff fails
to prosecute or to comply with [the court’s] rules or a court
order.” SAppx 23 (alterations in original) (quoting
RCFC 41(b)). The court noted that this requirement does
not change when a plaintiff is proceeding pro se. See
SAppx 23–24 (citing Duncan v. United States, 432 F. App’x
963, 965–66 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Ms. Stephens appeals. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
“We review the dismissal of an action pursuant to
RCFC 41(b) for abuse of discretion.” Bonilla-Mead
v. United States, 783 F. App’x 1036, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
(citing Kadin Corp. v. United States, 782 F.2d 175, 176
(Fed. Cir. 1986)). The Court of Federal Claims abuses its
Case: 24-2028 Document: 28 Page: 3 Filed: 02/05/2025

-- 3 of 6 --

STEPHENS v. US 4
discretion “when (1) its decision is clearly unreasonable,
arbitrary or fanciful; (2) the decision is based upon an erro-
neous construction of the law; (3) its factual findings are
clearly erroneous; or (4) the record contains no evidence
upon which the . . . court could have rationally based its de-
cision.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Shell Oil Co.
v. United States, 896 F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
“If a party fails to pay the requisite filing fee, despite
adequate notice and ample opportunity to do so, the [Court
of Federal Claims] acts within its discretion when it dis-
misses the action.” Bryant v. United States, 618 F. App’x
683, 686 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Kadin, 782 F.2d at 176
(“Although dismissal is a harsh sanction, we cannot say
that the [Court of Federal Claims] abused its discretion in
dismissing the complaint here. As noted, the appellant re-
peatedly and without valid justification ignored both court-
imposed deadlines and court rules.”). Here, Ms. Stephens
was warned three times that she needed to either pay the
requisite filing fee or file an IFP application and that re-
fusal to comply could result in the dismissal of her com-
plaint. Ms. Stephens then failed to pay the filing fee or file
an IFP application by the court-imposed deadline. As
Ms. Stephens had “adequate notice and ample oppor-
tunity” to comply with the Court of Federal Claims’ rules
and orders, the court did not abuse its discretion in dis-
missing her complaint without prejudice pursuant to
RCFC 41(b).
Ms. Stephens seemingly makes three arguments as to
why the Court of Federal Claims erred in dismissing her
complaint: (1) when the court provided Ms. Stephens with
the alternative option to proceed IFP, the court was imply-
ing she could not care for herself; (2) the court violated Ar-
ticle 9 of the United States’ Treaty with the Cherokee of
Case: 24-2028 Document: 28 Page: 4 Filed: 02/05/2025

-- 4 of 6 --

STEPHENS v. US 5
1866,2 as “rejecti[ng ]the Petitioner Affidavit saying that
she is Indian but coercing the Petitioner to fill out forms
that clearly make them a prisoner/citizen or they will not
be heard is the definition of involuntary servitude,” Appel-
lant’s Inf. Br. 73; and (3) the court committed “conspiracy,
fraud and false[ly ]misrepresent[ed ]the facts,” Appellant’s
Inf. Br. 9.
We are unpersuaded that the Court of Federal Claims
made an error of law or clearly erroneous fact finding. Tak-
ing each of her arguments in turn, Ms. Stephens raises her
objections to the alternative IFP requirement for the first
time on appeal and has thus forfeited this argument. See
Cal. Ridge Wind Energy LLC v. United States, 959 F.3d
1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We may deem an argument
forfeited when a party raises it for the first time on ap-
peal.”). Even so, we do not view the Court of Federal
Claims’ actions as involving any assumptions on Ms. Ste-
phens’ financial situation. Instead, the court was only sup-
plying Ms. Stephens with an alternative to paying the
required filing fee under its rules.
Next, regarding Ms. Stephens’ arguments on the treaty
with the Cherokee nation, she provides no support for the
proposition that someone seeking to avail oneself of a
United States court, regardless of their status as a Native
American, may do so without complying with that court’s
rules or orders. And in the Court of Federal Claims, like
all United States courts, parties are required to pay court
filing fees unless they are granted leave to proceed IFP.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915(a)(1), 1926(a); RCFC 77.1(c).
Likewise, parties before the Court of Federal Claims, as in
2 This article is related to the abolition of slavery in
the Cherokee nation. See Treaty with the Cherokee, art. 9,
July 19, 1866, 14 Stat. 799.
3 The pagination for Appellant’s Informal Brief is
taken from the page numbers of the PDF at ECF No. 15.
Case: 24-2028 Document: 28 Page: 5 Filed: 02/05/2025

-- 5 of 6 --

STEPHENS v. US 6
any other United States court, are required to comply with
its orders or risk dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);
RCFC 41(b). Moreover, Ms. Stephens does not provide any
support for the proposition that paying a filing fee or alter-
natively moving to proceed IFP changes one’s racial iden-
tity or status as a non-incarcerated person.
Finally, Ms. Stephens seems to be alleging that the
Court of Federal Claims and an attorney from the Depart-
ment of Justice in this case conspired, committed fraud,
and falsely misrepresented facts, specifically through the
“[t]he false representation or implication that any individ-
ual is an attorney or that any communication is from an
attorney.” Appellant’s Inf. Br. 8 (emphases removed). It is
unclear how this allegation relates to the issue before
us: whether the Court of Federal Claims made an error of
law or clearly erroneous fact finding in dismissing Ms. Ste-
phens’ action in light of her failure to pay the required fil-
ing fee or file an IFP motion after repeated warnings.
Moreover, Ms. Stephens has provided no evidence to sup-
port her allegations. Ms. Stephens’ contentions do not un-
dermine the fact that she did not pay the filing fee or file
an IFP application, nor do they undermine that she re-
ceived notice about the implications of this failure. She
thus has not shown that the Court of Federal Claims
abused its discretion in dismissing her complaint.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Ms. Stephens’ remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-2028 Document: 28 Page: 6 Filed: 02/05/2025

-- 6 of 6 --