Hout v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: August 11, 2025
• Docket: 25-1247
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-1247 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 08/11/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

JEFFREY HOUT, Plaintiff-Appellant

RALPH HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2025-1247 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-01032-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte. ______________________

Decided: August 11, 2025 ______________________

JEFFREY HOUT, Wasilla, AK, pro se.

ANNE DELMARE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, YAAKOV ROTH. ______________________ Case: 25-1247 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 08/11/2025

PER CURIAM. Jeffrey Hout appeals the dismissal of his action in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) for failure to prosecute.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Rules of the Court of Fed- eral Claims (“RCFC”), the Claims Court may dismiss a case on its own motion “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” We review a dis- missal pursuant to RCFC 41(b) for abuse of discretion. Ka- din Corp. v. United States, 782 F.2d 175, 176 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We also review a trial court’s timeliness determina- tion for abuse of discretion. See NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 365–66 (1973). We see no abuse of discretion by the Claims Court in this case. Incarcerated pro se plaintiff Mr. Hout filed his Complaint in the Claims Court alleging “fraud and obstruc- tion of justice” “against Alaska’s Governor.” S.A. 1, 4–5.2 On July 12, 2024, the Claims Court, “suspect[ing] it lack[ed] jurisdiction over [Mr. Hout]’s claims,” ordered Mr. Hout to show cause as to why his case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3). S.A. 17–18. Specifically, the Claims Court required Mr. Hout to, by August 12, 2024, “identify which source or sources of money-mandating law he is in- voking, identify how his claims are against the United States, and explain why [the Claims Court] has jurisdiction over this case.” S.A. 18. As of September 23, 2024, Mr. Hout had “still not filed a show cause as to why the

1 Today, we also issue an opinion in a companion ap- peal, Hernandez v. United States, No. 25-1248 (Fed. Cir.), where essentially the same allegations are made. 2 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix in- cluded with the government’s informal brief. Case: 25-1247 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 08/11/2025

HOUT v. US 3

[Claims] Court has jurisdiction over his claims.” S.A. 21– 22. Although Mr. Hout is proceeding pro se, the show cause order was unambiguous and clearly directed him to file a response explaining the jurisdictional basis for his case by the stated deadline. S.A. 18. When Mr. Hout failed to re- spond by the initial deadline, the Claims Court afforded Mr. Hout an additional opportunity to respond, extending the deadline to October 7, 2024, and warned Mr. Hout that if he still failed to file a response, the court “will have no choice but to dismiss [his] Complaint for failure to prose- cute pursuant to RCFC 41(b).” S.A. 21–22. There is no dispute that Mr. Hout’s next filing was not received by the Claims Court until October 25, 2024—eighteen days after the deadline, and a day after the Claims Court dismissed the action and directed that judgment be entered. Appel- lee’s Informal Br. 3–4; Informal Reply Br. 7.3 We hold that the Claims Court did not abuse its discre- tion in determining that Mr. Hout failed to timely file a re- sponse to the show cause order. Because that failure is dispositive, we affirm. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.

3 We cite to the ECF page numbers.