Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05093/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05093-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 528
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CLARENCE L. CERF,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5093

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:14-cv-00806-LB, Judge Lawrence J. 

Block.

______________________ 

Decided: October 9, 2015 

______________________ 

 CLARENCE L. CERF, Midway, TX, pro se.

 CHRISTOPHER L. HARLOW, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR., STEVEN J. GILLINGHAM. 

______________________ 

Before REYNA, MAYER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-5093 Document: 23-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/09/2015
2 CERF v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Clarence L. Cerf appeals a judgment of the United 

States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint 

for failure to prosecute. See Cerf v. United States, No. 

1:14-cv-00806-LB (Fed. Cl. Jan. 22, 2015). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Cerf filed a handwritten complaint in the United 

States Court of Federal Claims on September 2, 2014. He 

asserted that when he shut his eyes, he saw a red light 

and heard “radio frequency noises.” He further alleged 

that chemicals, including chlorine and Haldol, had been 

injected into his bloodstream and pores, disrupting his 

thoughts and allowing “criminal behavior” to be “programmed into [his] memory.” He sought an injunction 

prohibiting the State of Texas from using chemicals and 

implanted devices to obtain confessions and incriminating 

evidence from suspects during criminal investigations. 

He also asked for an order directing that he be provided 

with “an exam or x-ray with a surgeon general” so that 

the devices allegedly implanted in his body by the State of 

Texas could be medically examined. 

On November 3, 2014, the government moved to dismiss Cerf’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Cerf did not respond to this motion. On December 

19, 2014, the Court of Federal Claims issued a show cause 

order directing Cerf to file an opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss. The order explained that Cerf’s 

complaint would be dismissed for failure to prosecute if he 

did not file an opposition to the government’s motion to 

dismiss by January 20, 2015.

Cerf failed to file an opposition to the government’s 

motion to dismiss by the trial court’s January 20, 2015 

deadline. Accordingly, on January 22, 2015, the court 

dismissed Cerf’s complaint for failure to prosecute. Cerf 

filed a motion for reconsideration on March 10, 2015, but 

Case: 15-5093 Document: 23-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/09/2015
CERF v. US 3

the trial court denied the motion after concluding that it 

was untimely filed. See U.S. Ct. Fed. Claims R. 59(b) 

(requiring that motions for reconsideration be filed no 

later than twenty-eight days after entry of judgment). 

The Court of Federal Claims likewise denied Cerf’s motion for relief from judgment, see U.S. Ct. Fed. Claims R. 

60, after determining that he had presented “no grounds” 

justifying such relief. 

Cerf then appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). We apply an abuse of 

discretion standard in reviewing a trial court’s decision to 

dismiss for failure to prosecute. See Kadin Corp. v. United States, 782 F.2d 175, 176 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

DISCUSSION

For a judicial system to function effectively, courts 

must manage their dockets in a manner that promotes 

“the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. 

Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 631 (1962) (footnote omitted); 

see also Kadin, 782 F.2d at 177. The Court of Federal 

Claims issued a show cause order directing Cerf to respond to the government’s motion to dismiss. That order 

specifically informed Cerf that his case would be dismissed if his opposition to the government’s motion was 

not filed by January 20, 2015. Because Cerf failed to file 

an opposition by the deadline set by the trial court, it did 

not abuse its discretion in dismissing his complaint for 

failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Rules of 

the Court of Federal Claims. See Claude E. Atkins Enters., Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1180, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 

1990) (explaining that this court will not disturb a decision to dismiss for failure to prosecute unless “we are left 

with a definite and firm conviction that the [trial court] 

committed a clear error of judgment” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Although Cerf is proceeding pro se, the show cause 

order issued by the Court of Federal Claims was unamCase: 15-5093 Document: 23-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/09/2015
4 CERF v. US

biguous and clearly directed him to file an opposition to 

the government’s motion to dismiss by January 20, 2015. 

On appeal, Cerf contends that his case presents a case or 

controversy because the United States is “being charged 

with violating a chemical weapons prohibition.” He fails, 

however, to provide any reasonable justification for his 

failure to comply with the trial court’s show cause order 

by filing a timely opposition to the government’s motion to 

dismiss. Nor does he identify any error in the trial court’s 

denial of his petition for rehearing and his motion for 

relief from judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing Cerf’s complaint.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-5093 Document: 23-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/09/2015