Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01603/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01603-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Denis Chamberlain
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

KEVIN DENIS CHAMBERLAIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1603

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00653-PEC, Chief Judge Patricia E. 

Campbell-Smith.

______________________ 

Decided: July 8, 2016

______________________ 

KEVIN DENIS CHAMBERLAIN, Washington, DC, pro se.

JESSICA COLE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER,

ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., CLAUDIA BURKE. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and BRYSON, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 16-1603 Document: 19-2 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2016
2 CHAMBERLAIN v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Kenneth Denis Chamberlain 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. 16. Prior to the 

dismissal, the Claims Court rejected Mr. Chamberlain’s

request to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. at 14–15. 

Because the Claims Court did not abuse its discretion in 

reaching these conclusions, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Chamberlain filed a complaint in the Claims 

Court on June 24, 2015, alleging that the government 

improperly forfeited his property because, after it had 

undertaken a search and seizure, it never gave him notice 

of forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983. Id. at 1. Mr. 

Chamberlain requested $5 million in compensation. Id.

at 2.

That same day, Mr. Chamberlain filed an application 

to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. at 3–4. If allowed, the 

application would have waived the Claims Court’s $400 

filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Appellee’s App. 15. On 

his application, Mr. Chamberlain indicated that he had 

not been employed since February 2009 and had not 

received money from other sources in the last twelve 

months. Appellee’s App. 3. He did, however, indicate 

that he owned several pieces of real property in Georgia, 

as well as a Porsche, Mercedes, Infiniti, and three other 

cars. Id. at 4. He also identified a “stock portfolio” of 

“200%–280%.” Id. at 3. 

On November 19, 2015, the Claims Court denied Mr. 

Chamberlain’s application, finding that, because of the 

assets listed in his application, he was “not without the 

financial means to pay the court’s filing fee.” Id. at 15. 

The Claims Court directed Mr. Chamberlain to pay the 

filing fee by December 21, 2015. Id. Mr. Chamberlain did 

Case: 16-1603 Document: 19-2 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2016
CHAMBERLAIN v. US 3

not pay the filing fee, so, on December 23, 2015, the 

Claims Court dismissed his complaint without prejudice. 

Id. at 16.

Mr. Chamberlain appeals. This court has jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

Mr. Chamberlain argues that the Claims Court incorrectly decided the issue of whether he could proceed in 

forma pauperis to challenge the government’s forfeiture of 

his property. Appellant’s Informal Br. 1. Although his 

brief does not separately address the Claims Court’s 

decision to dismiss his complaint, we liberally construe 

his filings to also challenge this aspect of its decision. See

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (acknowledging that “allegations of the pro se complaint” are “h[e]ld to 

less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 

lawyers”).

We review a denial of an in forma pauperis request, 

as well as the dismissal an action pursuant to Claims 

Court Rule 41(b), for an abuse of discretion. See Colida v. 

Panasonic Corp. of N. Am., 374 F. App’x 37, 38–39 (Fed.

Cir. 2010) (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)); Kadin Corp. v. United States, 782 

F.2d 175, 176 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “An abuse of discretion 

may be established under Federal Circuit law by showing 

that the court made a clear error of judgment in weighing 

the relevant factors or exercised is discretion based on an 

error of law or clearly erroneous factfinding.” Qingdao 

Taifa Grp. Co. v. United States, 581 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. 

Cir. 2009) (quoting Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Chiron 

Corp., 384 F.3d 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) (internal 

quotation marks omitted).

The Claims Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Chamberlain’s application to proceed in forma 

Case: 16-1603 Document: 19-2 Page: 3 Filed: 07/08/2016
4 CHAMBERLAIN v. US

pauperis. Section 1915 permits, but does not require, a 

court to allow a party to proceed without paying the 

requisite fees if “the person is unable to pay such fees or 

give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Here, the 

Claims Court found that Mr. Chamberlain had a number 

of assets, including real property and several cars, which 

indicated that he was “not without” the means to pay his 

$400 filing fee. Appellee’s App. 15. We discern no clear 

error of judgment here, as the existence of such assets 

suggests some ability to afford a $400 filing fee. This 

conclusion is bolstered by the fact that Mr. Chamberlain 

indicated that he had a “stock portfolio” of “200%–280%.” 

Id. at 3. In addition, Mr. Chamberlain introduced no 

evidence that paying the filing fee would have imposed 

undue financial hardship. See Bryant v. United States, 

618 F. App’x 683, 685 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing in comparison Foster v. Cuyahoga Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 

21 F. App’x 239, 240 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Although pauper 

status does not require absolute destitution, the question 

is whether the court costs can be paid without undue 

hardship”)). Accordingly, the Claims Court did not err in 

denying Mr. Chamberlain’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis. 

In addition, the Claims Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Mr. Chamberlain’s complaint. The 

Claims Court gave Mr. Chamberlain notice in its decision 

on November 19, 2015 that it would dismiss his case if it 

did not receive payment for his filing fee. Appellee’s App.

16. Mr. Chamberlain had until December 21, 2015—a 

little over one month—to pay this fee. Id. He also could 

have sought reconsideration of the Claims Court’s decision or permission to supplement his application to proceed in forma pauperis. He did none of these things. 

Accordingly, the Claims Court did not abuse his discretion 

in dismissing his complaint. 

In addition to his informal brief, Mr. Chamberlain has 

also filed a motion for an injunction, which requests that 

Case: 16-1603 Document: 19-2 Page: 4 Filed: 07/08/2016
CHAMBERLAIN v. US 5

we change the deed on eleven different properties (some 

outside the United States) to reflect that he is the owner. 

ECF No. 16. We decline to do so. Mr. Chamberlain’s 

motion seems to be seeking declaratory relief, which 

should be the subject of a separate action in district court. 

Although Rule 8(a)(l)(C)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure authorizes us to grant an injunction pending appeal, we decline to do so when relief is more 

properly pursued in district court. See Fed. Cir. R. 

8(a)(l)(C)(2)(A)(1) (requiring a motion for injunction 

pending appeal “show that moving first in the district 

court would be impracticable”). Moreover, ownership of 

these properties is not related to the issue immediately 

before us (the Claims Court’s denial of Mr. Chamberlain’s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis), nor does it 

seem to be related to the complaint that Mr. Chamberlain

filed in the Claims Court. The complaint only references 

a property at “2300 M Street, NW Washington, DC 

20037,” which is not among the properties listed in Mr. 

Chamberlain’s motion. Compare Appellee’s App. 1, with

ECF No. 6 at 1. Accordingly, we deny Mr. Chamberlain’s 

motion. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of 

the Claims Court and deny Mr. Chamberlain’s request for 

an injunction.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear their own costs. 

Case: 16-1603 Document: 19-2 Page: 5 Filed: 07/08/2016