The opinion
Jf n tbe Wniteb
O G\NAl ~tates
<!Court of eberal <!Claims jf
No. 15-598C FILED
(Filed: July 21, 2015)
JUL 2 1 2015
)
CHELSEA L. DAVIS, ) U.S. COURT OF
FEDERAL CLAlMS
)
Plaintiff, )
) Pro Se; Rule 41(b); Involuntary Dismissal
v. )
)
THE UNITED STATES, )
)
Defendant. )
______________ )
Chelsea L. Davis, Dallas, Texas, Plaintiff pro se.
Michael D. Austin, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United
States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendant.
DISMISSAL ORDER
Pro se plaintiff, Chelsea L. Davis, brought this action asserting state and common law
claims for conversion and unjust enrichment and seeking unspecified monetary damages, in
connection with a challenge to the suspension of her law license in the State of Texas. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES plaintiff's complaint for failure to comply with a
Court Order.
On June 16, 2015, plaintiff1 filed this action, asserting state law claims for conversion
and unjust enrichment against the United States. Compl. at 3. Plaintiff also requests that this
Court act "sua sponte to expunge and void all matters, actions, and proceedings alleged to have
been brought against me, under the State Bar Act, Texas rules of disciplinary procedure, Internal
Procedural Rules of the Board of Disciplinary appeals or other rule ... " Compl. at 8. In
1
Plaintiff is an attorney who has practiced Jaw in the State of Texas. See generally, Compl. On May 13,
2015, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals appointed by the Supreme Court of Texas entered a Judgment of
Indefinite Disability Suspension, suspending plaintiffs law license. See In the Matter of Chelsea L.
Davis, Case No. 54202, (Board of Disciplinary Appeals, Judgment of Indefinite Disability Suspension,
filed May 13, 2015).
addition, plaintiff appears to seek to transfer a criminal matter to this Court and to challenge the
constitutionality of the Judiciary Act. Compl. at 4, 6-7.
When plaintiff filed her complaint, she failed to comply with several of the Rules of this
Court regarding the filing of pleadings. Specifically, plaintiffs complaint has not been properly
captioned or signed, and the compliant was not accompanied by either the required filing fee or
an application to proceed without prepayment of fees. Consequently, on June 16, 2015, the
Court entered an Order instructing plaintiff to cure these defects by July 15, 2015. See Order,
June 16, 2015. The Court's Order also stated that, should plaintiff fail to cure the defects by that
date, the Court would dismiss her complaint. Id.
Rule 41 (b) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC") provides
in pertinent part that:
If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these
rules or a court order, the court may dismiss on its own
motion .... Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a
dismissal under this subdivision (b) .. . operates as an
adjudication of the merits.
RCFC 41 (b). Plaintiff has not corrected the defects in her complaint, nor has plaintiff submitted
the required filing fee or motion to waive the filing fee, as required by the Court's June 16, 2015
Order. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's Order, the Court dismisses her
complaint pursuant to RCFC 41(b).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES plaintiffs complaint.
The Clerk's Office is directed to ENTER final judgment in favor of defendant
DISMISSING the complaint. No costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2