Background
Dawn Unga-Stick, proceeding pro se, filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking a refund of $29,373.00 for federal taxes she alleged she overpaid. Her complaint identified the 2021 tax year as the basis for the refund claim, but the supporting exhibits she attached reflected payment information for the 2022 tax year — a facial inconsistency that the government moved to resolve through a motion for a more definite statement.
On April 24, 2026, the court granted the government’s motion and ordered Unga-Stick to file an amended pleading clarifying which tax year was at issue, setting a deadline of May 8, 2026. The court expressly warned her that failure to comply could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). She missed that deadline without explanation.
On May 18, 2026, the court issued a second order extending the deadline to June 1, 2026, and renewing the dismissal warning. Unga-Stick again failed to file anything by the extended deadline.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Elaine D. Kaplan dismissed the case without prejudice under RCFC 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The court found that Unga-Stick’s repeated non-compliance with court-ordered deadlines — despite two explicit warnings that dismissal would follow — warranted dismissal.
As a procedural matter incidental to closing the case, the court also granted Unga-Stick’s pending motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The clerk was directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se plaintiff who misses two court-ordered amendment deadlines, each accompanied by an explicit dismissal warning, faces dismissal for failure to prosecute under RCFC 41(b).
- The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning Unga-Stick is not necessarily barred from refiling if she can cure the pleading deficiencies and comply with court procedures.
- Courts will grant in forma pauperis status even at the point of dismissal when doing so is necessary to conclude the case administratively.
Why It Matters
This order is a straightforward application of RCFC 41(b) and serves as a reminder that pro se status does not exempt litigants from compliance with court deadlines and orders. Courts in the Court of Federal Claims, like other federal tribunals, require plaintiffs to actively prosecute their cases, and repeated failures to meet ordered deadlines — even after explicit warnings — will result in dismissal.
For practitioners advising clients who have missed court-ordered deadlines in tax refund cases, the without-prejudice dismissal here leaves open the possibility of refiling, but any new complaint would need to clearly identify the correct tax year and satisfy the court’s pleading requirements from the outset.