In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 21-737C

(Filed: February 22, 2021)

(NOT TO BE PUBLISHED)

RUSSELL K. HILL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

OPINION AND ORDER

SOLOMSON, Judge.

On January 14, 2021, Plaintiff, Russell K. Hill, a Mississippi prisoner proceeding 

pro se, filed a complaint against Defendant, the United States. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). 

Mr. Hill also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2.

On January 15, 2021, this Court denied Mr. Hills’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. ECF No. 6. The Court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), commonly known 

as the “three strikes rule,” precluded Mr. Hill from proceeding in forma pauperis because 

Mr. Hill had, “on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated . . . brought an action or 

appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it . . . fails 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Id. Mr. Hill also was not “under 

imminent danger of serious physical harm,” which would constitute an exception to the

three strikes rule. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

This Court thus ordered Mr. Hill to pay the $402 filing fee within 30 days of the 

entry of its order to avoid dismissal of his complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to 

Rule 41 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). ECF No. 6. 

More than 30 days has now elapsed, and Mr. Hill still has not paid the requisite filing 

fee. 
- 2 -

Furthermore, even if Mr. Hill had paid the filing fee, his claim would be 

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3) (providing 

for sua sponte dismissal for lack of jurisdiction). In his complaint, Mr. Hill seeks 

damages in the amount of $36,000,000 for an alleged Fifth Amendment Taking. Compl.

at 1. Mr. Hill also alleges that he was wrongfully denied access to the Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia after he attempted to file a habeas corpus petition there

against the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Id. at 1–2. Mr. Hill alleges that 

“the clerk of the D.C. Court of Appeals did not file the properly submitted habeas 

petition or rather improvidentially [sic] dismissed the habeas petition, due to ‘political 

passion.’” Id. at 2. He contends that the “D.C. federal courts are a factionous [sic] 

family” that denied his petition because of “treasonous loyalty to the faction,” to 

include the Speaker. Id. Although Mr. Hill is proceeding pro se, and this Court 

generally holds a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings to “less stringent standards,” Haines v. 

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972) (per curiam), this Court has “no duty . . . to create a 

claim which [the plaintiff] has not spelled out in his pleading.” Scogin v. United States, 

33 Fed. Cl. 285, 293 (1995) (quotation omitted). Because Mr. Hill has not alleged any 

facts to support a Fifth Amendment takings claim, and because this Court lacks 

jurisdiction over habeas petitions, the Court has no jurisdiction to decide Mr. Hill’s 

claims, even if he had paid the required filing fee. See, e.g., Ledford v. United States, 297 

F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[T]he habeas statute does not list the Court of Federal 

Claims among those courts empowered to grant a writ of habeas corpus.”); Emerson v. 

United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 126, 129 (2015) ([The habeas statute] . . . explicitly provides a 

list of courts and judicial officers authorized to entertain habeas applications, and this 

list does not include the Court of Federal Claims or any judge thereof.”); Stephenson v. 

United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 186, 192 (2003) (“[T]he Court of Federal Claims is not named 

among those courts having authority to grant writs of habeas corpus.”).

Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute pursuant to RCFC 

41 and, in the alternative, pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3). The clerk is directed to enter 

judgment. 

It is so ORDERED.

s/Matthew H. Solomson 

Matthew H. Solomson

Judge