Bankston v. United States

ORIGINAL lfn tbe Wniteb $tates (!Court of jfeberal (!Claitns No. 17-1449C (Filed May 23, 2018) NOT FOR PUBLICATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ANGELIQUE NICHOLE * BANKSTON, * * * FILED Plaintiff, * MAY 2 3 2018 v. * * U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORDER As explained in this Court's May 9, 2018 Order, ECF No. 19, this case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The plaintiff, Angelique Nichole Bankston, had been given numerous time extensions since November of 2017 to file a response to the government's motion to dismiss this case- filed on October 31, 2017. See ECF No. 7. Ms. Bankston's response was due on April 10, 2018. See ECF No. 18. By May 9, 2018, this Court had received nothing from Ms. Bankston and dismissed this case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Rules of t he United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). ECF No. 19.

On May 17, 2018, a paper opposing the government's motion to dismiss this case was received in a mangled envelope. The certificate of service signed by the plaintiff is dated April 10, 2018. It appears that the envelope was mailed but then returned to the prison's mailroom with an "unable to forward" sticker appended, and then resent after its return. Given Ms. Bankston's prose status and that it appears from the certificate of service that Ms. Bankston delivered the paper to prison-mail staff on April 10, 2018, the paper was t imely. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270- 75 (1988) (holding that a prose prisoner's paper is timely filed once it is delivered to prison authorities). Because this case has already been closed, the Court will treat the paper as a motion for reconsideration under RCFC 59 and will allow it to be filed as such. Thus, to t he extent that the motion seeks reconsideration of this Court's determination t hat Ms. Bankston failed t o prosecute her claim, t he motion is GRANTED-IN-PART because Ms. Bankston did attempt to timely respond to the government's motion.

The plaintiff, however, presents no grounds warranting the reopening of this case. Her paper is premised on "sover eign citizen" beliefs t hat the U nited States is a private corporation and that the federal government has imposed its laws on her without h er contractual consent. But as this court has previously explained, such "claims a re frivolous and cannot serve as the basis for this Court's assertion of jurisdiction." Mitchell v. United States, 136 Fed. Cl. 286, 289 (2018) . Furt her, as noted in the Court's May 9 Order, this court has no authority to review the decisions of other fe deral courts-including criminal judgments. See E CF No. 19, at n.'j'. The motion is ther efor e DENIED-IN-PART regarding plaintiff's attempts to litigate frivolous matter s that are beyond this court's jurisdiction, as dismissal was required under RCFC 12(h)(3). This case shall r emain closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

v1~~~rJf-rrJTIT~Ff-~-- Ju

-2-