# 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# eberal QCiaitns No. 17-173C (Filed August 31, 2017) NOT FOR PUBLICATION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, 

### * * Defend a nt. 

### * 

### * ************************ 

### ORDER 

# FILED AUG 3 1 2017 U

. S

. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

On August 14, 2017, the Clerk's office received a package of do c uments submitted by plaintiff. These docum e nts were not filed when received because they failed to comply with rules of our court
--- most prominently, t h e 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 orig in al, signed copy, the Court will excuse this defect in light of plaintiff's prose status. Th e d ocum e nts submitted are of an irregular nature , consisting of a cover sheet purporting to instruct the Clerk on the order in which plaintiff desires the docum ents to b e 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 recognizab le for filing
. Although it is difficult to discern the meaning of many if not a ll of the remaining papers , the Court has reviewed them to determine whether and how each should be filed. The first, fourth, fifth, and sixth docume nts appear to have some relationship, however tangential, to Mr. Croteau 's argument that this court has jurisdiction over his claim
. The Clerk shall fil e thes e, collectively, as a supp l emental 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 tim e ly submitted, the Clerk shall fil e them, co lle ctive ly, as a r eply in support of plaintiff's motion for a de fault judgme nt . Plaintiff in the eighth do cument purports to requ est that our court forward the p aper to President Trump
. That document co nsists mainly of a copy of the brie f that was t h e sixth do cum e nt s ubmitted by plaintiff. Thi s i s an improp e r r eq u est that is not provided for in our rul es . The Cle rk shall return thi s document to Mr. Croteau. The ninth and t e nth docum e nts refer to prison dis ciplinary actions, and the twelfth docum e nt contains th e do cket sheet for Mr. Croteau 's criminal case. The Cl erk s hall fil e these, collectiv e l y, as a status report. The eleve nth document is e ntitled "MOTION HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING BY VIDEO CONFERENCE". This docume nt m ay b e fil ed as an applicatio n for a writ of hab e as cor pus. This court ha s no juri s dictio n over s u ch applicatio n s . 

### L ed ford v . United Sta tes, 297 F.3d 1 3 78, 1 38 1 (Fe d
. Cir. 2002); 28 U
. S
. C. 

### § 2241. Accordingly, this motion is 

### DENIED . On t h e seco nd p age of the t hird do cument , Mr
. Croteau sheds some light on his pre viously-un explaine d motion for a de fault judgme nt , w hi ch was fil ed June 9, 2017. H e seems to believe t h at t he gov ernment's moti on to dismi ss t h e case was fi led a day late . Plaintiff mi sa pprehend s o ur court's m et hod of calc ulating deadlin es . P e r RCFC 6(a), a p eriod of time is calculated excl udin g the day of the eve nt which triggered the period
. Pl aintiff's co mplaint was fil e d on Febru a ry 6 , 20 17 , while the government's r espo ns e wa s fil ed sixty days l ater, on April 7, 2017
. Therefore, th e government's filing was time ly. Plaintiff is a l so mistaken in claimin g that the gove rnment mu st file an answer within sixty days. The government may in s t ead file a motion unde r RCFC 12 or 56 a nd thereby alter the de a dline for filing an ans w er. RCFC 12( a)(4 ) ; 

### see Brandon v. United State s, No. 15-600C, 2015 WL 5175142 , at *1 (Fed
. Cl. Sept. 3, 2015). Thus , pl a intiff 's motion fo r a d efault judgme nt is 

### DENIED. t IT IS SO ORDERED.

t To the e xtent this motion can b e construed as a request for or a l a rgum ent co n cerning the government's m ot ion to dismiss the case, this, too is 

### DENIED . The Co u rt at th i s time does n o t b e lieve that oral argume nt w o uld b e us e ful r egarding that mo tio n .

- 2 -