Lesley Vowels v. United States

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LESLEY VOWELS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1606
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-00064-RMM, Judge Robin M. Meriweather.
______________________
Decided: April 16, 2026
______________________
LESLEY VOWELS, Louisville, KY, pro se.
ELINOR JOUNG KIM, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, MAYER and LOURIE, Circuit
Judges.
Case: 25-1606 Document: 60 Page: 1 Filed: 04/16/2026

-- 1 of 5 --

VOWELS v. US 2
PER CURIAM.
Lesley Vowels appeals the United States Court of Fed-
eral Claims dismissal of her complaint for failure to prose-
cute. For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On January 13, 2025, Ms. Vowels filed a complaint
against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims
seeking redress for an alleged violation of her constitu-
tional and statutory rights by federal and state officials.
S. Appx. 15–24.1 Ms. Vowels’ claim primarily relates to a
state-court-ordered eviction and repossession of two vehi-
cles, which she asserts violated her rights as a person with
disabilities. See id. She also claims Kentucky state courts,
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky, and the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit have denied her access to the courts after dis-
missing at least twenty-eight other cases and appeals.2 Id.
at 18–19, 21–22. Ms. Vowels’ complaint seeks redress un-
der the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments, and the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). Id. at 19–20.
Ms. Vowels’ filings with the Court of Federal Claims
failed to comply with the court’s rules on multiple occa-
sions, including for lack of a signature and a valid mailing
address. After the Court of Federal Claims issued four
1 “S. Appx.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix at-
tached to the Government’s Brief.
2 Ms. Vowels raises several other issues in her brief,
including a constitutional challenge to state legislation, de-
nial of her right to trial by jury, and abuse of power for lack
of judicial recusal. Appellant’s Br. at 6, 10–12. Those alle-
gations, however, are not relevant to the Court of Federal
Claims dismissal of this case for Ms. Vowels’ failure to
prosecute, and we do not address them here.
Case: 25-1606 Document: 60 Page: 2 Filed: 04/16/2026

-- 2 of 5 --

VOWELS v. US 3
orders providing Ms. Vowels an opportunity to comply with
the court’s rules, the court dismissed her complaint for fail-
ure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). S. Appx. 1–3. Ms. Vow-
els appeals.3 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(3).4
DISCUSSION
We review the Court of Federal Claims dismissal of a
complaint under Rule 41(b) for an abuse of discretion. Ka-
din Corp. v. United States, 782 F.2d 175, 176 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (citations omitted). A pro se litigant is afforded leni-
ency on procedural matters, but that leniency “does not
translate to unfettered deference and dereliction of judicial
review.” Steffen v. United States, 995 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed.
Cir. 2021).
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Ms. Vowels’
complaint for her “failure to comply with the Court’s Or-
ders, and . . . the Court’s inability to contact Ms. Vowels be-
cause she has failed to either provide a valid mailing
3 On April 2, 2026, Ms. Vowels submitted a motion
seeking relief in the form of a criminal investigation into
actions taken by state and federal actors that she alleges
resulted in a gun shot wound. Dkt. No. 58 at 6–7, 11. This
is a court of limited jurisdiction, which does not include ju-
risdiction over criminal matters. 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Accord-
ingly, we deny Ms. Vowels’ motion.
4 Although the Court of Federal Claims dismissed
Ms. Vowel’s complaint without reaching the question of ju-
risdiction, we find that at least her Fifth Amendment claim
meets the minimal showing required for the Court of Fed-
eral Claims to exercise jurisdiction. See Columbus Reg’l
Hosp. v. United States, 990 F.3d 1330, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
(citing Lewis v. United States, 70 F.3d 597, 602 (Fed. Cir.
1995)) (citations omitted); 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a). The Gov-
ernment does not contest jurisdiction.
Case: 25-1606 Document: 60 Page: 3 Filed: 04/16/2026

-- 3 of 5 --

VOWELS v. US 4
address or consent to electronic notification.” S. Appx. 2.
Specifically, the court cited Ms. Vowels’ failure to comply
with the court’s January 31, 2025 order instructing
Ms. Vowels to “(1) file a corrected, signed Complaint pur-
suant to RCFC 5.5(d)(1)(A)(i) and 11(a); (2) at that time,
provide either a valid mailing address or consent to elec-
tronic notification, so that the Court may have a legally
valid means of contacting her; and (3) file an application to
proceed [in forma pauperis] that uses [the Court of Federal
Claims’] form or pay the required fees on or before Febru-
ary 21, 2025.” Id. at 1 (citing S. Appx. 13–14). Yet
Ms. Vowels “repeatedly and without valid justification ig-
nored both court-imposed deadlines and court rules,” and
failed to submit any responsive filings. Kadin, 782 F.2d at
176–77.
We see no abuse of discretion with the Court of Federal
Claims dismissal under these circumstances. Regarding
the court’s request for a signed complaint and contact in-
formation, the rules are unambiguous. “The court must
strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly
corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s at-
tention.” RCFC 11(a) (emphasis added). Additionally,
“[e]very pleading, written motion, and other pa-
per . . . must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, and
telephone number.” Id. (emphasis added). The court un-
ambiguously set February 21, 2025, as the deadline for
compliance, S. Appx. 14; warned that failure to comply
may lead to dismissal without prejudice, id.; and reminded
Ms. Vowels on three separate occasions of her obligation to
comply, S. Appx. 10, S. Appx. 11, S. Appx. 12. Ms. Vowels’
continued and unexplained failure to comply despite these
repeated reminders was ample justification for the court to
dismiss Ms. Vowels’ complaint for failure to prosecute.
Ms. Vowels makes several arguments about the merits
of her case on appeal, but virtually none addresses the
Court of Federal Claims’ stated rationale for dismissal—
namely, Ms. Vowels’ failure to comply with the court’s rules
Case: 25-1606 Document: 60 Page: 4 Filed: 04/16/2026

-- 4 of 5 --

VOWELS v. US 5
and orders. At best, Ms. Vowels appears to argue that mail
fraud and a subsequent investigation prevented her from
receiving mail beginning at least shortly before she filed
her complaint. See Appellant’s Br. at 5, 17. But even if Ms.
Vowels’ mail fraud statements are construed to mean she
never received the court’s orders, her allegation of mail
fraud does not excuse non-compliance. Ms. Vowels was not
required to receive notice prior to dismissal. See Claude E.
Atkins Enters., Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1180, 1184–
85 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370
U.S. 626, 632 (1962)) (dismissal under Rule 41(b) for failure
to comply with the court’s orders does not require explicit
notice as to the possibility of dismissal). Ms. Vowels was
also not prevented from providing an address or completing
an E-Notification Consent Form when she filed her com-
plaint. See RCFC App. E at 14(b)(i)–(ii) (allowing pro se
litigants who complete the consent form to be served by
email). Ms. Vowels instead listed the address where she
had lived prior to her eviction more than a year before the
complaint was filed. The court’s repeated attempts to no-
tify her by mail were returned undeliverable. S. Appx. 5–
6 at Dkt. Nos. 6, 8, 16–17. Ms. Vowels bears responsibility
for failing to provide the court with a valid mailing address.
While the court is sympathetic to Ms. Vowels’ difficul-
ties, she had sufficient opportunity to comply with the
court’s rules and orders. She failed to offer a valid excuse
for her non-compliance. Under these circumstances, we see
no abuse of discretion in the Court of Federal Claims dis-
missal under Rule 41(b).
CONCLUSION
We have considered Ms. Vowels’ remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1606 Document: 60 Page: 5 Filed: 04/16/2026

-- 5 of 5 --