NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

DEBRA BONILLA-MEAD,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2019-1785

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:18-cv-01904-EDK, Judge Elaine Kaplan.

______________________

Decided: November 7, 2019

______________________

DEBRA BONILLA-MEAD, Gaithersburg, MD, pro se. 

 GEOFFREY MARTIN LONG, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by JOSEPH H. HUNT, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN,

JR., PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________

Before NEWMAN, SCHALL, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
2 BONILLA-MEAD v. UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM.

DECISION

Debra Bonilla-Mead appeals the February 19, 2019 decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims in 

Bonilla-Mead v. United States, No. 18-1904C. In that decision, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed Ms. BonillaMead’s action because she failed to pay the requisite filing 

fee. Suppl. App. 2–3. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

I.

Ms. Bonilla-Mead filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims on December 6, 2018. Suppl. App. 7–15. In 

her complaint, Ms. Bonilla-Mead alleged that she filed a 

complaint in Federal District Court in Maryland “concerning unlawful foreclosure action by a Racketeering Influenced and Controlled Organization” that was “dismissed 

. . . sua sponte.” Id. at 8. Ms. Bonilla-Mead did not pay the 

filing fee required by the Rules of the Court of Federal 

Claims (“RCFC”) Rule 77.1(c), nor did she file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. at 16. 

On January 18, 2019, the court issued an Order to 

Show Cause why Ms. Bonilla-Mead’s complaint should not 

be dismissed under RCFC 41(b). Id. In response, she filed 

a “Memorandum to Show Cause” on February 15, 2019. Id.

at 17–19. In her memorandum, Ms. Bonilla-Mead asserted 

that her case before the Court of Federal Claims had been 

transferred from the United States District Court for the 

District of Maryland. Id. at 18. Accordingly, Ms. BonillaMead asserted, no filing fee was due under RCFC 3.1(a)(3), 

which provides that, in the case of a transfer, “[n]o filing 

fee is required in this court when all filing fees required in 

the other court are shown to have been paid.” Id.

On February 19, 2019, the Court of Federal Claims ordered that Ms. Bonilla-Mead’s complaint be dismissed 
BONILLA-MEAD v. UNITED STATES 3

pursuant to RCFC 41(b). Suppl. App. 2–3. In so doing, the 

court rejected Ms. Bonilla-Mead’s contention that her case 

had been transferred to the court. Id. at 2. Rather, the 

court pointed out, her case before the Court of Federal 

Claims was filed as a separate action. Id. On February 21, 

2019, the court entered judgment pursuant to RCFC 41(b) 

and dismissed Ms. Bonilla-Mead’s case with prejudice. Id.

at 1.

Ms. Bonilla-Mead appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

II.

We review the dismissal of an action pursuant to RCFC 

41(b) for abuse of discretion. Kadin Corp. v. United States, 

782 F.2d 175, 176 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “A court abuses its discretion when (1) its decision is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary or fanciful; (2) the decision is based upon an 

erroneous construction of the law; (3) its factual findings 

are clearly erroneous; or (4) the record contains no evidence 

upon which the . . . court could have rationally based its 

decision.” Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 896 F.3d 1299, 

1307 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Hi-Shear Tech. Corp. v. 

United States, 356 F.3d 1372, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

III.

On appeal, Ms. Bonilla-Mead continues to assert that 

her action was transferred from the District Court for the 

District of Maryland. Appellant Br. 12. As Ms. BonillaMead acknowledges, however, her action before the district 

court was dismissed. Suppl. App. 8. As it was dismissed 

by the district court, it was not transferred to the Court of 

Federal Claims. Ms. Bonilla-Mead was given an opportunity to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed. Ms. Bonilla-Mead did not make the required 

showing, nor did she pay the fee during that time. “If a 

party fails to pay the requisite filing fee, despite adequate 
4 BONILLA-MEAD v. UNITED STATES

notice and ample opportunity to do so, the [Court of Federal 

Claims] acts within its discretion when it dismisses the action, just as it did in this case.” Bryant v. United States, 

618 F. App’x. 683, 686 (2015) (citing Brown v. United 

States, 88 Fed. Cl. 795, 798 (2009). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of 

Federal Claims is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.