Vedrick Lamonte Symonette v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
VEDRICK LAMONTE SYMONETTE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1697
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-00250-EHM, Judge Edward H. Meyers.
______________________
Decided: March 5, 2026
______________________
VEDRICK L AMONTE SYMONETTE, Raiford, FL, pro se.
I SABELLE AUBRUN, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
ELIZABETH M ARIE HOSFORD, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ,
BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
Before L OURIE, WALLACH , and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Case: 25-1697 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 03/05/2026

-- 1 of 5 --

SYMONETTE v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Mr. Symonette appeals a decision of the United States
Court of Federal Claims dismissing his Complaint for
failure to prosecute. Because the Court of Federal Claims
did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Mr. Symonette’s
Complaint, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On February 10, 2025, Mr. Symonette, proceeding pro
se, filed a Complaint in the Court of Federal Claims,
alleging that he has a perfected security interest in his
collateral (i.e., birth certificate and social security account
number) and the United States is wrongfully detaining his
private property. SAppx4–6.1 Mr. Symonette also filed a
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, electing
not to pay the requisite filing fee. See SAppx64–66.
The Court of Federal Claims denied Mr. Symonette’s
Motion because he failed to meet the applicable statutory
standard for proceeding in forma pauperis. See SAppx67–
68. As the Court of Federal Claims explained, under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g), “a prisoner may not proceed in forma
pauperis if he or she has brought three or more cases while
incarcerated that were dismissed as ‘frivolous, malicious,
or fail[ing] to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.’” SAppx67 (alteration in original).
Here, the Court of Federal Claims held that
“Mr. Symonette [did] not allege that he is in imminent
danger of physical injury” and “has previously filed at least
three complaints that were dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, or for failure to state a claim.” SAppx67–68.
Consequently, Mr. Symonette was ordered to pay the filing
1 “SAppx” refers to the appendix filed with the
Government’s Informal Response Brief.
Case: 25-1697 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 03/05/2026

-- 2 of 5 --

SYMONETTE v. US 3
fee by March 17, 2025, or else his Complaint would be
dismissed. SAppx68.
On March 3, 2025, Mr. Symonette filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, alleging that he had been physically
assaulted and his physical body was in danger of serious
injury.2 See SAppx71–73. Mr. Symonette also alleged that
the Florida First District Court of Appeal “wrongly denied”
him “protection” from attacks. SAppx72. The Court of
Federal Claims denied Mr. Symonette’s Motion, explaining
that “[h]is complaint did not allege that he faced imminent
danger of serious physical injury” and it lacked jurisdiction
to “entertain collateral attacks on state court decisions.”
SAppx81. Again, the Court of Federal Claims ordered
Mr. Symonette to pay the filing fee by March 17, 2025.
SAppx82. Mr. Symonette failed to pay the filing fee, and
on March 25, 2025, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed
Mr. Symonette’s Complaint for failure to prosecute.
SAppx83–84. Mr. Symonette appeals. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
Under Rule 41(b) of the Rules of the Court of Federal
Claims, “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply
with these rules or a court order, the court may dismiss on
its own motion.” We review a dismissal pursuant to Rule
41(b) for an abuse of discretion. Claude E. Atkins Enters.,
Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1180, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“A court abuses its discretion when (1) its decision is clearly
unreasonable, arbitrary or fanciful; (2) the decision is
based upon an erroneous construction of the law; (3) its
factual findings are clearly erroneous; or (4) the record
contains no evidence upon which the . . . court could have
2 Mr. Symonette framed his Motion as a Notice of
Appeal, but the Court of Federal Claims construed it as a
Motion for Reconsideration. See SAppx80.
Case: 25-1697 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 03/05/2026

-- 3 of 5 --

SYMONETTE v. US 4
rationally based its decision.” Shell Oil Co. v. United
States, 896 F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hi-Shear Tech. Corp. v.
United States, 356 F.3d 1372, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
We see no abuse of discretion by the Court of Federal
Claims in this case.
On appeal, Mr. Symonette continues to argue that he
has a perfected security interest in his collateral. Inf. Br.
App. at 1–3. However, Mr. Symonette fails to explain his
failure to pay the filing fee, even though the Court of
Federal Claims twice ordered him to do so. While
Mr. Symonette does argue the Court of Federal Claims
applied the wrong law, citing Florida Statutes “679.5011(2)
and 679.509(2)” and “Public Policy House Joint Resolution
192 of June 5[,] 1933,” Inf. Br. App. at 2, the cited
authorities are irrelevant to the matter before this Court.
The authorities Mr. Symonette cites are directed towards
the merits of the arguments raised in his Complaint—that
he has a perfected security interest in his collateral and the
United States is wrongfully detaining his private property.
None of Mr. Symonette’s arguments persuade this Court
that the Court of Federal Claims abused its discretion in
dismissing his Complaint for failure to pay the filing fee.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner is barred from
proceeding in forma pauperis “if the prisoner has, on 3 or
more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any
facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United
States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.” The Court of
Federal Claims denied Mr. Symonette’s Motion for Leave
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis because it found that he had
previously filed multiple frivolous complaints and failed to
allege that he was in imminent danger of physical injury.
See SAppx67–68. In doing so, the Court of Federal Claims
Case: 25-1697 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 03/05/2026

-- 4 of 5 --

SYMONETTE v. US 5
gave Mr. Symonette approximately one month to pay the
required filing fee. See SAppx68.
Prior to the deadline, the Court of Federal Claims also
denied Mr. Symonette’s construed Motion for
Reconsideration and again ordered him to pay the filing fee
by March 17, 2025. See SAppx80–82. On March 25, 2025,
approximately a week after the deadline, the Court of
Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Symonette’s Complaint for
failure to prosecute because he failed to pay the filing fee.
SAppx83. “If a party fails to pay the requisite filing fee,
despite adequate notice and ample opportunity to do so, the
[Court of Federal Claims] acts within its discretion when it
dismisses the action, just as it did in this case.” Bryant v.
United States, 618 F. App’x 683, 686 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing
Brown v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 795, 798 (2009)).
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Symonette’s remaining
arguments but do not find them persuasive. For the
foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of Federal
Claims is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1697 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 03/05/2026

-- 5 of 5 --