Jf n tbe Wniteb ~tates QC:ourt of jf eberal QCiaitns 

No. 17-173C 

(Filed August 31, 2017) 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

************************ 

* 

* 

RONALD FRANCIS CROTEAU, * 

* 

Plaintiff, * 

v. * 

* 

THE UNITED STATES, * 

* 

Defendant. * 

* 

************************ 

ORDER 

FILED 

AUG 3 1 2017 

U.S. COURT OF 

FEDERAL CLAIMS 

On August 14, 2017, the Clerk's office received a package of documents 

submitted by plaintiff. These documents were not filed when received because they 

failed to comply with rules of our court --- most prominently, t he requirement that 

an original and two copies of each document be submitted for filing under Rule 

5.5(d)(2) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). 

Although plaintiff submitted just one photocopy of each document, and not the 

original, signed copy, the Court will excuse this defect in light of plaintiff's prose 

status. 

The documents submitted are of an irregular nature, consisting of a cover 

sheet purporting to instruct the Clerk on the order in which plaintiff desires the 

documents to be filed, and twelve separate papers which he designates as motions 

of various sorts. The cover sheet submitted by Mr. Croteau will be returned to him, 

as it is not in a form recognizable for filing. Although it is difficult to discern the 

meaning of many if not all of the remaining papers, the Court has reviewed them to 

determine whether and how each should be filed. 

The first, fourth, fifth, and sixth documents appear to have some 

relationship, however tangential, to Mr. Croteau's argument that this court has 

jurisdiction over his claim. The Clerk shall file these, collectively, as a 

supplemental brief opposing the defendant's motion to dismiss the case. No 

response from the government is required. 
The second, third, and seventh documents pertain to plaintiff's motion for a 

default judgment. Although these were not timely submitted, the Clerk shall file 

them, collectively, as a reply in support of plaintiff's motion for a default judgment. 

Plaintiff in the eighth document purports to request that our court forward 

the paper to President Trump. That document consists mainly of a copy of the brief 

that was the sixth document submitted by plaintiff. This is an improper request 

that is not provided for in our rules. The Clerk shall return this document to Mr. 

Croteau. 

The ninth and tenth documents refer to prison disciplinary actions, and the 

twelfth document contains the docket sheet for Mr. Croteau's criminal case. The 

Clerk shall file these, collectively, as a status report. 

The eleventh document is entitled "MOTION HABEAS CORPUS 

PROCEEDING BY VIDEO CONFERENCE". This document may be filed as an 

application for a writ of habeas corpus. This court has no jurisdiction over such 

applications. Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); 28 

U.S.C. § 2241. Accordingly, this motion is DENIED. 

On the second page of the third document, Mr. Croteau sheds some light on 

his previously-unexplained motion for a default judgment, which was filed June 9, 

2017. He seems to believe that t he government's motion to dismiss the case was 

filed a day late. Plaintiff misapprehends our court's method of calculating 

deadlines. Per RCFC 6(a), a period of time is calculated excluding the day of the 

event which triggered the period. Plaintiff's complaint was filed on February 6, 

2017, while the government's r esponse was filed sixty days later, on April 7, 2017. 

Therefore, the government's filing was timely. Plaintiff is also mistaken in claiming 

that the government must file an answer within sixty days. The government may 

instead file a motion under RCFC 12 or 56 and thereby alter the deadline for filing 

an answer. RCFC 12(a)(4); see Brandon v. United States, No. 15-600C, 2015 WL 

5175142, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 3, 2015). Thus, plaintiff's motion for a default 

judgment is DENIED.t 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

t To the extent this motion can be construed as a request for oral argument 

concerning the government's motion to dismiss the case, this, too is DENIED. The 

Court at this time does not believe that oral argument would be useful regarding 

that motion. 

- 2 -