Rohland v. United States
17-1175
| Fed. Cl. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Pro se prisoner plaintiff filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on Aug. 30, 2017 without filing fee or a completed IFP application; court ordered compliance.
- Plaintiff later submitted an IFP application with a Prisoner Authorization Form; court found it contained sufficient financial information.
- Court reviewed the three-strikes rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and found plaintiff did not appear to have three strikes, so IFP status was allowable.
- Plaintiff filed motions for class certification and for a jury trial; the court delayed addressing them until IFP compliance.
- The court denied the jury-trial motion because jury trials are not available in the Court of Federal Claims, granted IFP with the statutory payment schedule, and granted defendant an extension to respond to the class-certification motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 | Rohland asserted inability to pay filing fee and submitted IFP paperwork | No contention that plaintiff is barred by three-strikes; sought additional time to respond to motions | IFP granted; plaintiff must pay filing fee over time per § 1915(b) |
| Applicability of the three-strikes rule (28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)) | Plaintiff did not claim imminent danger; argued indigence | Defendant did not show plaintiff has three qualifying strikes | Court found plaintiff does not appear to have three strikes and thus may proceed IFP |
| Availability of jury trial in Court of Federal Claims | Plaintiff demanded a jury trial | Defendant opposed or did not contest substantive point; court noted statutory/structural limits | Jury trial denied; CF. Claims is an Article I court and suits against the U.S. carry no Seventh Amendment jury right |
| Whether defendant may obtain enlargement to respond to class-certification motion | Plaintiff wanted prompt consideration of motions | Defendant requested extension to respond and to coordinate response with its answer | Court granted enlargement to respond to class-certification motion; extension to respond on jury-motion denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Pleasant-Bey v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 363 (2011) (district court guidance on IFP sufficiency in the Court of Federal Claims)
- Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759 (2015) (three-strikes rule and exceptions under § 1915(g))
- James v. Caldera, 159 F.3d 573 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (recognizing nonexistence of jury trials in the Court of Federal Claims)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (Article I courts and Seventh Amendment jury right limitations)
- Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156 (1981) (Seventh Amendment does not apply to actions against the federal government)