Background
Pro se plaintiff Gene Edward Scott II sued the United States and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. His three-page complaint asserted that he possessed “Federal Orders against the DOJ and Fiscal Service” and sought relief for “legal moneys,” but did not allege facts articulating a coherent claim or establishing Tucker Act jurisdiction.
The court found that Scott had filed at least five prior cases in the Court of Federal Claims, four of which were dismissed, and that court staff had identified more than 100 prior meritless federal lawsuits. A federal district court in Arizona had previously imposed an abusive-litigant injunction restricting his ability to bring in forma pauperis actions.
The Court’s Holding
Chief Judge Solomson denied Scott’s in forma pauperis motion. Although inability to pay ordinarily may support fee-waiver status, the court held that in forma pauperis status is discretionary and may be denied based on a litigant’s history of frivolous or abusive filings. Scott’s litigation history and the facially frivolous nature of the present complaint warranted denial.
The court ordered Scott to pay the filing fee by November 9, 2026; otherwise, the action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute under RCFC 41. The court also warned that, even if Scott pays, it likely lacks jurisdiction over his claim. Separately, it ordered Scott to show cause by November 9 why the court should not impose an anti-filing injunction requiring preapproval for future filings, and directed the Clerk to refer any interim new complaints from Scott to the judge before docketing.
Key Takeaways
- A court may deny in forma pauperis status based on a nonprisoner’s history of frivolous or abusive litigation.
- The court found Scott’s current complaint facially frivolous and likely outside its jurisdiction.
- Scott must pay the filing fee and respond to the proposed anti-filing injunction by November 9, 2026.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the Court of Federal Claims’ authority to use its discretion over fee-waiver requests and to screen frivolous claims. It also provides notice and an opportunity to be heard before the court considers restricting a serial litigant’s future access to filing without prior approval.