Jeremy Wayne Gladden v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JEREMY WAYNE GLADDEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1815
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-00123-MRS, Judge Molly R. Silfen.
______________________
Decided: January 9, 2026
______________________
J EREMY WAYNE G LADDEN, Lufkin, TX, pro se.
T ARA K. HOGAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY , BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 25-1815 Document: 30 Page: 1 Filed: 01/09/2026

-- 1 of 6 --

GLADDEN v. US 2
Jeremy W. Gladden appeals from decisions of the
United States Court of Federal Claims. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
I
Mr. Gladden, who is incarcerated, filed a complaint in
the Court of Federal Claims alleging constitutional and
civil-rights violations arising from his arrest, indictment,
and incarceration. His complaint was accompanied by a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The govern-
ment moved to dismiss his complaint for lack of jurisdiction
under rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal
Claims (RCFC).
While this motion was pending, the trial court denied
Mr. Gladden’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis after it
found that he failed to make an adequate showing for such
status. It explained how Mr. Gladden attested to a “gross
income of $12,400 per month” and a “net income of $6,200
per month” in “November 2024”—figures “far above [fed-
eral] poverty guidelines.” Order Den. Appl. to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis and Directing Payment of Fee at 2, Glad-
den v. United States, No. 25-cv-00123 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 30,
2025), ECF No. 10 (IFP Denial). It further described his
motion as “internally inconsistent,” as Mr. Gladden also in-
dicated that he had not received any money in the twelve
months prior to filing his complaint, along with other in-
consistencies about his financial status. Id. And although
the inconsistencies “may indicate that [Mr. Gladden] erred
in listing his income,” the trial court explained that it
“must rely on his attestation and cannot guess which part
of his application is correct.” Id.
The trial court therefore ordered Mr. Gladden to pay
$405.00 in filing fees by May 21, 2025, or it would “dismiss
the case without prejudice, under rule 41 of the [RCFC], for
the procedural reason that Mr. Gladden failed to prosecute
his case.” Id. at 3. Mr. Gladden did not pay, so his case was
dismissed for failure to prosecute, and judgment was
Case: 25-1815 Document: 30 Page: 2 Filed: 01/09/2026

-- 2 of 6 --

GLADDEN v. US 3
entered.1 Mr. Gladden timely appeals. We have jurisdic-
tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
II
We see two possible interpretations of Mr. Gladden’s
appeal.2 First, Mr. Gladden may be appealing the trial
court’s denial of his request to proceed in forma pauperis.
Second, Mr. Gladden may be appealing the trial court’s dis-
missal of his claim for failure to prosecute. Given Mr. Glad-
den’s pro se status, we construe his filings liberally and
address both possible interpretations. Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (stating documents filed pro se are
to be liberally construed).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the decision to grant in forma
pauperis status is discretionary. See Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 33–34 (1992). Accordingly, we review a denial
of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis for abuse of dis-
cretion, the same standard under which we review a dis-
missal for failure to prosecute under RCFC 41(b). Fourstar
v. United States, 950 F.3d 856, 858 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Kadin
Corp. v. United States, 782 F.2d 175, 176 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
1 The government’s motion to dismiss was denied as
moot. Order of Dismissal, Gladden v. United States, No. 25-
cv-00123 (Fed. Cl. May 22, 2025), ECF No. 13.
2 Mr. Gladden’s briefs were limited, consisting of
about eight sentences. See generally Appellant’s Br. & Re-
ply Br. Mr. Gladden’s Notice of Appeal filed with the trial
court stated he was appealing the “Court[’]s Decision to
Deny In Forma Pauperis.” Notice of Appeal, Gladden v.
United States, No. 25-cv-00123 (Fed. Cl. May 22, 2025),
ECF No. 15. Appellee, however, construed his appeal to
also challenge the dismissal. See Appellee’s Br. 1 (“This
Court should affirm the judgment of the Court of Federal
Claims, dismissing Mr. Gladden’s case for failure to prose-
cute.”).
Case: 25-1815 Document: 30 Page: 3 Filed: 01/09/2026

-- 3 of 6 --

GLADDEN v. US 4
An abuse of discretion occurs when a court “made a clear
error of judgment . . . or exercised its discretion based on
an error of law or clearly erroneous fact finding.” Qingdao
Taifa Grp. v. United States, 581 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2009) (cleaned up).
A
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Mr. Gladden’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Based
on Mr. Gladden’s submission, the trial court reasonably
found that he did not show an inability to pay fees without
undue hardship. Although the trial court acknowledged his
motion’s inconsistencies, it explained that it could rely only
on his representations as written because it could not de-
termine which contradictory statements were correct. IFP
Denial at 2.
Mr. Gladden argues that the trial court “misdated my
Informa Pauperis, making an error in the dates of year
2024, correct 2023,” and asks this court to “correct [the] er-
ror in forma pauperis dates.” Appellant’s Br. 1, 3. But the
record shows that Mr. Gladden handwrote his motion, so
any alleged error unfortunately originated with his own
submissions. See Mot. for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pau-
peris at 2, Gladden v. United States, No. 25-cv-00123
(Fed. Cl. Jan. 21, 2025), ECF No. 2. As the party seeking in
forma pauperis status, Mr. Gladden bore the burden of
supporting his assertion that paying filing fees would pose
an undue burden, including submitting accurate infor-
mation. See 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(a)(1). We find the trial court
did not abuse its discretion in concluding that “Mr. Glad-
den has not sufficiently demonstrated that paying the fil-
ing fee would constitute undue hardship” where his motion
contained inconsistent factual allegations regarding his el-
igibility for such status. IFP Denial at 2–3.
Case: 25-1815 Document: 30 Page: 4 Filed: 01/09/2026

-- 4 of 6 --

GLADDEN v. US 5
B
Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in dismiss-
ing Mr. Gladden’s case for failure to prosecute. The trial
court expressly ordered Mr. Gladden to pay filing fees by
May 21st and unambiguously warned that failure to com-
ply would result in dismissal. It is undisputed that he did
not pay. So, although Mr. Gladden is proceeding pro se, the
trial court clearly ordered him to pay by the stated dead-
line, or else his case would be dismissed. IFP Denial at 3.
Under these circumstances, where a party fails to pay re-
quired fees after adequate notice, dismissal for failure to
prosecute is well within the trial court’s discretion.3 See,
e.g., Kadin, 782 F.2d at 176–77. The trial court therefore
did not abuse its discretion.
III
We have considered Mr. Gladden’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing
3 To the extent Mr. Gladden argues he did not pay
because the trial court erred in denying his motion to pro-
ceed in forma pauperis, the proper course was to amend
and seek reconsideration or immediately appeal the denial.
See Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct. N. Dist. Cal., 339 U.S. 844, 845
(1950) (stating in forma pauperis denials are subject to in-
terlocutory appeal); see also Harris-Johnson v. United
States, No. 25-1380, 2025 WL 2840820, at *5 (Fed. Cl.
Oct. 7, 2025) (granting in forma pauperis status after liti-
gant filed an amended application). A party cannot refuse
to comply with an order simply because the party believes
the court was incorrect. See, e.g., Maness v. Meyers,
419 U.S. 449, 458 (1975) (“[A]ll orders . . . of courts must be
complied with promptly. If a person to whom a court directs
an order believes that order is incorrect the remedy is to
appeal, but, absent a stay, he must comply promptly with
the order pending appeal.”).
Case: 25-1815 Document: 30 Page: 5 Filed: 01/09/2026

-- 5 of 6 --

GLADDEN v. US 6
reasons, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Mr. Gladden’s
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissal
for failure to prosecute.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No Costs.
Case: 25-1815 Document: 30 Page: 6 Filed: 01/09/2026

-- 6 of 6 --