Case: 25-1568 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 10/16/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ PETER JOSEPH POLINSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2025-1568 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-02136-EDK, Judge Elaine Kaplan. ______________________ Decided: October 16, 2025 ______________________ PETER JOSEPH POLINSKI, Marcy, NY, pro se.

TARA K. HOGAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, YAAKOV ROTH. ______________________ Before LOURIE, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Case: 25-1568 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 10/16/2025

2 POLINSKI v. US

Peter Polinski, appearing pro se, appeals from the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) de- cision dismissing his complaint for failure to prosecute. See Polinski v. United States, No. 24-2136C, 2025 WL 462603 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 11, 2025) (Decision). For the following rea- sons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND On December 26, 2024, Mr. Polinski filed a complaint in the Claims Court alleging the “unlawful seizure” of Gen- eral Services Administration (GSA) bonds and “a bill of ex- change valued at $66,000,000” by the Richfield Town Court as well as misappropriation by the New York State Treas- urer. SAppx 8. 1 He claimed violations of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Thirteenth Amendments, as well as damages arising from tortious actions committed by the Government. He sought $468,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.

Mr. Polinski moved to proceed in forma pauperis, but his application was incomplete because he omitted his date of last employment, amount of salary per month, and ex- planation of how he was paying his expenses. SAppx 4.

The Claims Court deemed the motion defective and ordered Mr. Polinski to either file a completed in forma pauperis application, or pay the filing fee by February 10, 2025. Id. The Claims Court warned that if Mr. Polinski “fail[ed] to comply with this order, this action shall be dismissed with- out prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims.” Id. Mr. Polinski filed another in forma pauperis applica- tion on January 30, 2025. On February 11, 2025, the court dismissed the complaint, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute. The Claims Court explained that Mr. Polinski’s

1 “SAppx” refers to the supplemental appendix filed with the government’s informal response brief.

Case: 25-1568 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 10/16/2025

POLINSKI v. US 3

second application was “again incomplete” and “lack[ed] credibility” because he stated that he had no expenses, no income for six years, did not own any property, and only had 33 cents in the bank. Decision, 2025 WL 462603 at *1.

The court entered judgment on February 14, 2025.

SAppx 2.

Mr. Polinski now appeals to this court. We have juris- diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION Under Rule 41(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, the Claims Court may dismiss a case on its own motion, “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” RCFC 41(b).

We apply an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the Claims Court’s decision to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

Claude E. Atkins Enters., Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1180, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

The Claims Court issued an order directing Mr. Polin- ski to either file a completed in forma pauperis application or pay a filing fee. SAppx 4. The order explicitly informed Mr. Polinski that his case would be dismissed if he failed to comply by February 10, 2025. Id. Because Mr. Polinski failed to file a completed form or pay the required filing fee by the deadline, the Claims Court did not abuse its discre- tion in dismissing his complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims. See Claude, 899 F.2d at 1183 (explaining that we will not disturb a decision to dismiss for failure to prosecute unless “we are left with a definite and firm conviction that the [Claims Court] committed a clear error of judgment” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

On appeal, Mr. Polinski does not address his failure to comply with the Claims Court’s order. Instead, he argues that the court erred in dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. However, the Claims Court did not reach the Case: 25-1568 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 10/16/2025

4 POLINSKI v. US

jurisdictional question, dismissing solely for failure to pros- ecute. Decision, 2025 WL 462603 at *1; SAppx 2. Accord- ingly, we need not address Mr. Polinski’s jurisdictional arguments.

We have considered Mr. Polinksi’s remaining argu- ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea- sons, we affirm the decision of the Claims Court.

AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.