Randall v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: April 22, 2026
• Docket: 25-2160
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-2160 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 04/22/2026

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RAMSEY RANDALL, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2025-2160 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:25-cv-00638-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank Horn. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________

PER CURIAM. ORDER In response to the court’s February 12, 2026 order di- recting the parties to show cause, the United States urges dismissal of this appeal as untimely. Ramsey Randall has not responded. We now dismiss. On June 3, 2025, the United States Court of Federal Claims entered judgment dismissing Mr. Randall’s Case: 25-2160 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 04/22/2026

complaint for failure to pay the filing fee or to submit a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. On June 23, 2025, the Court of Federal Claims received from Mr. Randall a “Motion and Request for Reconsideration to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,” including “an incomplete copy of an application to proceed in forma pauperis from a United States District Court form.” See Dkt. No. 13 at 1. On July 2, 2025, the trial court issued an order rejecting that filing. Mr. Randall then filed a notice of appeal dated September 11, 2025, but indicating it was put in the prison mailbox the day earlier. That notice was received by the trial court on September 25, 2025. To be timely, a notice of appeal must typically be re- ceived by the Court of Federal Claims within 60 days of the entry of that court’s resolution of the last timely-filed post- judgment motion. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2107(b), 2522; Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); Fed. Cir. R. 1(a)(1)(C). This statutory dead- line is mandatory and jurisdictional, such that we may not excuse a late notice. Marandola v. United States, 518 F.3d 913, 914 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 438–39 (2011); cf. Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(1). Because the notice of appeal was not received within that time, we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss.1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed, and all pending motions are denied.

1 Although it appears Mr. Randall was incarcerated at the time he filed his notice, he has not submitted any declaration or evidence establishing that he deposited his notice of appeal in the institution’s mail system with first- class postage prepaid on or before the last day for filing. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Fed. Cir. R. 1(a)(1)(C). Case: 25-2160 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 04/22/2026

RANDALL v. US 3

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

April 22, 2026 Date