Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05065/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05065-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodney A. Bryant
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RODNEY A. BRYANT,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5065

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:14-cv-00657-MCW, Judge Mary Ellen 

Coster Williams.

______________________ 

Decided: October 14, 2015

______________________ 

 RODNEY A. BRYANT, Jamaica, NY, pro se.

 PAUL ANDREW ALLULIS, Tax Division, United States 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendantappellee. Also represented by ROBERT WILLIAM METZLER,

CAROLINE D. CIRAOLO. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-5065 Document: 12-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/14/2015
2 BRYANT v. UNITED STATES

Before PROST, Chief Judge, WALLACH and TARANTO,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Appellant Rodney A. Bryant appeals the decision of 

the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims 

Court”) dismissing his action because he failed to pay the 

requisite filing fee. Appellee’s App. 2. Prior to the dismissal, the Claims Court rejected Mr. Bryant’s request to 

proceed in forma pauperis. Id. at 3. Because the Claims 

Court did not abuse its discretion in reaching these conclusions, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

In May and June 2014, the United States Department 

of Treasury’s Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued 

notices announcing that it would seek to collect delinquent federal income tax liabilities that Mr. Bryant owed 

for the years 1998 to 2003, as well as civil penalties 

imposed upon him for the years 2002 and 2004. Appellant’s Informal Br. 5–6. Mr. Bryant altogether owed over 

$200,000 in unpaid taxes and civil penalties. Id.

In July 2014, Mr. Bryant sued the IRS in the Claims 

Court, arguing that the IRS wrongfully levied upon his 

wages and financial accounts. Id. at 3–4. When Mr. 

Bryant filed his complaint, he also filed a motion for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, which if granted would 

relieve him of paying the requisite $350 filing fee. Appellee’s App. 10; see 28 U.S.C. § 1926(b) (2012) (explaining 

that the Claims Court “may require advance payment of 

fees by rule”); Claims Ct. R. 77.1(c)(3) (2008) (explaining 

that parties must pay a filing fee “in advance” unless 

granted leave to proceed in pauper status); 

Claims Court Fees Schedule, available at http://www.usco

urts.gov/services-forms/fees/us-court-federal-claims-feeschedule (last visited Oct. 8, 2015) (providing filing fee of 

$350 owed at the time Mr. Bryant filed his Complaint). 

Case: 15-5065 Document: 12-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/14/2015
BRYANT v. UNITED STATES 3

The Claims Court denied the motion the next day because 

the record demonstrated that Mr. Bryant received a 

monthly pension payment of $7,998.96 and, thus, he had 

not shown good cause for the request. Appellee’s App. 3.

Some eighty-five days after the Claims Court denied 

Mr. Bryant’s motion, the Government filed a motion to 

dismiss the Complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to 

Claims Court Rule 41(b).1 Id. at 11. In relevant part, the 

rule permits the Claims Court to dismiss an action if “the 

plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with” its rules, 

Claims Ct. R. 41(b), including the payment of the filing 

fee, Claims Ct. R. 77.1(c)(3). Mr. Bryant did not respond 

to the motion or pay the filing fee in the interim. The 

Claims Court granted the Government’s motion and 

entered judgment dismissing the action. Appellee’s App. 

1–2.

1 In the alternative, the Government argued that 

the Claims Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over 

Mr. Bryant’s action. Appellee’s App. 4. Whether a plaintiff properly instituted its action, such as by paying the 

requisite fees, antecedes any question regarding a court’s 

authority to hear the issues presented. See, e.g., Costello 

v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 285 (1961) (finding dismissal appropriate when a plaintiff fails “to comply with a 

precondition requisite to the Court’s going forward to 

determine the merits of his substantive claim”); United 

States v. Zucca, 351 U.S. 91, 99–100 (1956) (same); see 

also Fed. Cir. R. 52(c) (explaining that in this court “[t]he 

clerk is not required to docket any proceeding or perform 

any other service until all fees due the clerk are paid 

unless a party has been granted leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis”). Because we affirm the Claims Court’s dismissal for Mr. Bryant’s failure to prosecute, we need not 

address that argument.

 

Case: 15-5065 Document: 12-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/14/2015
4 BRYANT v. UNITED STATES

Mr. Bryant appeals. The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). 

DISCUSSION

Mr. Bryant argues that the court should enter “judgment in [his] favor” and order the “release [of his] property.” Appellant’s Informal Br. 2. He makes no specific 

argument regarding the Claims Court’s denial of his 

request to proceed in forma pauperis or its dismissal of 

his action. The court gives Mr. Bryant the same lenient

treatment typically accorded to pro se litigants and construes his statement as a challenge to the Claims Court’s 

denial of his request for pauper status and dismissal of 

his case. See, e.g., Beriont v. GTA Labs., Inc., 535 F. 

App’x 919, 926 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (unpublished). 

The court reviews for an abuse of discretion the denial 

of an in forma pauperis request, as well as the dismissal

an action pursuant to Claims Court Rule 41(b). Kadin 

Corp. v. United States, 782 F.2d 175, 176 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 

(discussing dismissal under Claims Ct. R. 41(b)); see also 

Colida v. Panasonic Corp. of N. Am., 374 F. App’x 37, 38 

(Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33–34 (1992); Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de 

Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 337 (1948)) (discussing 

denial of a request for pauper status). An abuse of discretion occurs when a court “exercise[s] its discretion based 

on an error of law or clearly erroneous fact finding.” 

Qingdao Taifa Grp. v. United States, 581 F.3d 1375, 1379 

(Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted). 

The Claims Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Bryant’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

“‘[P]roceeding in forma pauperis . . . is a privilege, not a 

right.’” White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 

1998) (brackets omitted) (quoting Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 

719, 724 (11th Cir. 1998)). A party may proceed in forma 

pauperis if it “is unable to pay” fees in a “court of the 

Case: 15-5065 Document: 12-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/14/2015
BRYANT v. UNITED STATES 5

United States” or “give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1); see id. § 2503(d) (treating the Claims Court 

as “a court of the United States” for purposes of § 1915). 

The Claims Court found that Mr. Bryant’s pension paid 

him roughly $8,000 per month, or $96,000 annually, 

meaning that he possessed the financial means to pay the 

$350 filing fee. Appellee’s App. 3. The record does not 

indicate that he would have experienced undue financial 

hardship in paying the fee. Cf. Foster v. Cuyahoga Dep’t 

of Health & Human Servs., 21 F. App’x 239, 240 (6th Cir. 

2001) (unpublished) (“Although pauper status does not 

require absolute destitution, the question is whether the 

court costs can be paid without undue hardship.”). Thus, 

the Claims Court acted within its discretion in denying 

his request.2 Cf. § 1915(a)(1).

The Claims Court also did not abuse its discretion 

when it dismissed Mr. Bryant’s action. Mr. Bryant received notice that he did not qualify for pauper status on 

July 29, 2014. Appellee’s App. 3. Between the dates on 

which Mr. Bryant received that notice and the Government filed its motion to dismiss, Mr. Bryant did not seek 

reconsideration of the Claims Court’s denial or supplement his application to proceed in forma pauperis, nor did 

he pay the fee. After the Government filed its motion to 

dismiss, Mr. Bryant had a month to respond. Id. at 11. 

Mr. Bryant did not avail himself of that opportunity, nor 

did he pay the fee during that time. If a party fails to pay 

the requisite filing fee, despite adequate notice and ample 

opportunity to do so, the Claims Court acts within its 

discretion when it dismisses the action, just as it did in 

2 Notably, Mr. Bryant paid the $505 filing fee required to appeal his case to this court in March 2015, only 

months after failing to pay the Claims Court fee. See 

Bryant v. United States, No. 2015-5065, Docket No. 1 at 3 

(Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2015).

 

Case: 15-5065 Document: 12-2 Page: 5 Filed: 10/14/2015
6 BRYANT v. UNITED STATES

this case. See, e.g., Brown v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 

795, 798 (2009) (stating that dismissal is proper when a 

party fails to pay a filing fee and does not qualify for 

pauper status).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the decision of the United States Court of 

Federal Claims is

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-5065 Document: 12-2 Page: 6 Filed: 10/14/2015