Chowdhury v. United States
This text of Chowdhury v. United States (Chowdhury v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Case: 25-1918 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 09/26/2025
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________
ENAMUL HAQE CHOWDHURY, Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________
2025-1918 ______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-01544-AOB, Judge Armando O. Bonilla. ______________________
ON MOTION ______________________
Before LOURIE, PROST, and CHEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER In response to this court’s August 7, 2025 order direct- ing the parties to show cause, the United States argues the case should be dismissed as untimely. Enamul Haqe Chowdhury submits his opening brief, in which he urges the court to apply “equitable tolling.” ECF No. 7 at 3. He separately moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Case: 25-1918 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 09/26/2025
On October 2, 2024, the United States Court of Federal Claims entered judgment dismissing Mr. Chowdhury’s complaint. The Court of Federal Claims received Mr. Chowdhury’s notice of appeal on July 3, 2025, 274 days af- ter entry of judgment. The timely filing of a notice of appeal from a final judg- ment of the Court of Federal Claims is a jurisdictional re- quirement that cannot be waived and is not subject to equitable tolling. Marandola v. United States, 518 F.3d 913, 914 (Fed. Cir. 2008); cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 438–39 (2011). Mr. Chowdhury had 60 days to file his notice of appeal from the Court of Federal Claims’s judgment, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 2107(b), 2522; Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); Fed. Cir. R. 1(a)(1)(C), but he failed to do so. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review the final judgment and must dismiss. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) All pending motions are denied. (3) Each party shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT
September 26, 2025 Date
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Chowdhury v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chowdhury-v-united-states-cafc-2025.