Williams v. United States

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedJuly 28, 2025
Docket24-2056
StatusUnpublished

This text of Williams v. United States (Williams v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Federal Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williams v. United States, (uscfc 2025).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 24-2056 Filed: July 28, 2025 ________________________________________ ) CYIANNA WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________________ )

ORDER

Plaintiff Cyianna Williams, appearing pro se, brought this action in December 2024. ECF No. 1. On April 14, 2025, the Government moved to dismiss Ms. Williams’s complaint. ECF No. 12. Accordingly, Ms. Williams’s response to that motion was due on May 15, 2025. Ms. Williams did not file her response by the deadline.

On June 20, 2025, the court extended Ms. Williams’s response deadline to June 30, 2025. ECF No. 14. In that order, the court informed Ms. Williams that if she “does not file a response with the court on or before June 30, 2025, the court will grant the Government’s motion to dismiss . . . as unopposed and dismiss her complaint.” ECF No. 14 (emphasis omitted). As of the date of this order, Ms. Williams still has not filed her response.

The court, however, is not sure that Ms. Williams is receiving filings in this case. According to the Postal Service, the order extending her deadline to respond to the Government’s motion to dismiss, which was sent to the address she has on file with the court, has been returned to the court as unclaimed, which is not the first time that documents have been returned to the court for this reason. See ECF No. 11 (returning unclaimed mail). In any event, she has failed to prosecute this action.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Government’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 12, as unopposed and DISMISSES Ms. Williams’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the avoidance of doubt, the court’s dismissal is without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

It is so ORDERED.

s/ Edward H. Meyers Edward H. Meyers Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Williams v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-united-states-uscfc-2025.