Travoy R. Hollie, Jr. v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TRAVOY R. HOLLIE, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1743
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:26-cv-00500-RAH, Judge Richard A. Hertling.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R
Travoy R. Hollie, Jr., appeals from an order of the
United States Court of Federal Claims and moves for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and other relief. For
the following reasons, we summarily affirm.
On March 31, 2026, Mr. Hollie filed this suit at the
Court of Federal Claims and moved for IFP. On April 2,
2026, the Court of Federal Claims denied his motion and
Case: 26-1743 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

HOLLIE v. US 2
ordered payment of the filing fee, citing Mr. Hollie’s history
of frivolous complaints. On April 20, 2026, the trial court
received Mr. Hollie’s notice of appeal.1 On April 23, 2026,
the Court of Federal Claims purported to dismiss for fail-
ure to pay the fee and lack of jurisdiction.
Orders denying IFP status are immediately appeala-
ble. See Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 339
U.S. 844, 845 (1950). The determination of whether to al-
low a litigant to proceed IFP is committed to the sound dis-
cretion of the trial court. See Fourstar v. United States, 950
F.3d 856, 858 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Mr. Hollie’s opening brief
fails to raise any cogent, non-frivolous argument as to why
the IFP determination of the Court of Federal Claims was
incorrect, let alone an abuse of discretion. Instead, his brief
consists for the most part of unfounded attacks against the
Clerk of the Court of Federal Claims. Because we conclude
no substantial question regarding the outcome of this ap-
peal exists, we summarily affirm. Joshua v. United States,
17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).2
Accordingly,
1 Mr. Hollie’s notice of appeal states he is seeking re-
view of a decision dated “APRIL 13, 2026.” ECF No. 1-2 at
1; see id. at 5 (noting the date of receipt of the notice). The
docket reveals no decision from the Court of Federal
Claims on that date. We instead treat Mr. Hollie’s notice
of appeal, liberally construed, as a timely challenge to the
trial court’s denial of his IFP motion.
2 In light of Mr. Hollie’s notice of appeal, it appears
that the subsequent judgment dismissing the complaint
may be void and should be reentered following this court’s
mandate in this appeal. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer
Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58–59 (1982); Roberts, 339 U.S. at
845.
Case: 26-1743 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

HOLLIE v. US 3
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
(1) The Court of Federal Claims’s denial of Mr. Hollie’s
motion to proceed IFP is summarily affirmed.
(2) All pending motions are denied.
(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
July 23, 2026
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 26-1743 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 3 of 3 --