Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Peter Joseph Polinski, Petitioner v. United States

(Bjr

PETER JOSEPH POLINSKI

FILED

OCT 2 7 2025

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT, U.S,

Petitioner in Equity

-V.

UNITED STATES

Respondent

WRIT OF CERTIORARI

From Federal Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Case No. 25-1568

Peter- Joseph: Royal House Pol inski, Private Attorney General

Ambassador of the Christ II Corinthians 5:20

5735 Cavanaugh rd. Suite 614

Marcy New York, 13403-9998

Merlinski05@Droton.me

WRIT OF CERTIORARI

3fn tlje Supreme Court of tlje ®nitoil States

)

Peter- Joseph: Royal House Polinski,

Living Man, Ecclesiastical Minister,

Private Attorney General, Ambassador

for Christ

Case No.

Petitioner in Equity

)

)

Judge:

)

v.

)

The United States of America

)

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF

CERTIORARI

Respondent.

)

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

I.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the Court of Federal Claims may dismiss a pro se complaint for failure to

prosecute based solely on an assertedly incomplete in forma pauperis application without

employing lesser measures or providing a meaningful opportunity to cure, consistent with

due process and access to courts.

2. Whether affirming a Rule 41(b) dismissal that prevents any consideration of a Fifth

Amendment takings claim under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, is consistent with this

Court’s pleading standards that judge sufficiency by plausibility rather than proof at the

threshold.

1

II.

LIST OF PARTIES

All parties appear in the caption.

Petitioner: Peter Joseph Polinski, Marcy, New York.

Respondent: United States of America, represented in the courts below by the United States

Department of Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch. Counsel of record below

included Tara K. Hogan, with Patricia M. McCarthy and Yaakov Roth.

III.

RELATED CASES

Polinski v. United States, No. l:24-cv-02136-EDK, United States Court of Federal Claims.

Order dismissing for failure to prosecute entered February 11,2025. Judgment entered February

14,2025. Judge Elaine D. Kaplan.

Polinski v. United States, No. 2025-1568, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Non-precedential per curiam decision affirming entered October 16,2025. Judgment: Affirmed.

Panel: Lourie, Reyna, and Chen, Circuit Judges.

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW...................................................................................................... 4

JURISDICTION............................................................................................................. 4

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED........................ 4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE......................................................................................... 5

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT..............................

2

6

CONCLUSION................................................................ ................................................ 9

INDEX OF APPENDICES

Appendix A — United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Nonprecedential per

curiam opinion and Judgment, Oct 16, 2025

Appendix B — United States Court of Federal Claims, Decision (Feb 11,2025) and Judgment

(Feb 14,2025)

Appendix C — Order on rehearing denying the rehearing

Appendix D — Constitutional and statutory provisions: U.S. Const, amend. V; 28 U.S.C. § 1491;

RCFC 41(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1); 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States 568 U.S. 23 2012 ............................. 8

Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662 2009..................................................................................... 7

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544 2007......................................... 7

Erickson v. Pardus 551 U.S. 89 2007 per curiam........................................................... 7

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles 482 U.S. 304 1987..... 8

Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 1972 per curiam.................................................................. 7 & 9

Link v. Wabash Railroad Co. 370 U.S. 626 1962.......................................................... 7

United States v. Testan 424 U.S. 392 1976....................................................................... 7 & 8

STATUTES AND RULES

U.S. Const, amend. V............................................................................ 5

28 U.S.C. § 1491 ........................................................................................................ 1 & 5

3

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1)................................................................................................ 3,4, & 5

28 U.S.C. § 2101(c)................................................................................................ 3,4, &5

RCFC 41(b)

V.

1,3,5 6,7, & 8

OPINIONS BELOW

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential per curiam

decision affirming on October 16,2025, in No. 2025-1568. The decision and judgment appear in

Appendix A.

The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed for failure to prosecute on February 11,

2025, and entered judgment on February 14, 2025, in No. l:24-cv-02136-EDK. The decision is

published at Polinski v. United States, 2025 WL 462603 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 11, 2025). These appear

in Appendix B.

VI.

JURISDICTION

The court of appeals entered judgment on October 16, 2025. No petition for rehearing was filed.

This petition is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c). The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). This Court’s authority is exercised pursuant to Article III, § 2 of the

Constitution.

VH.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

U.S. Constitution Amendment V Takings Clause.

28 U.S.C. § 1491 Tucker Act.

Rule 41(b) Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims.

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

28 U.S.C. § 2101(c).

The full texts appear in Appendix D.

VIII. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Proceedings in the Court of Federal Claims. On December 26, 2024 Petitioner filed a pro

se complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging uncompensated

deprivation of property interests including alleged seizure or misappropriation involving

General Services Administration bonds and a bill of exchange valued at sixty six million

dollars. Petitioner moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The court ordered Petitioner to

file a completed in forma pauperis application or pay the filing fee by February 10, 2025

and warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Petitioner filed a second in forma pauperis application on January 30, 2025. On February

11, 2025 the court dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) and entered

judgment on February 14,2025. In explaining its ruling the court stated that the second

application was again incomplete and that the financial disclosures lacked credibility

because they reflected no income for six years no expenses no property and a bank

balance of $0.33. The court did not provide a brief extension request a targeted

supplemental declaration to clarify the missing entries such as date of last employment

monthly income and explanation of how basic expenses were paid or allow fee payment

within a short period. The court did not reach jurisdiction or the merits of the Fifth

Amendment claim.

2. Proceedings in the Court of Appeals. Petitioner appealed. On October 16,2025 the

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in a nonprecedential per

5

curiam disposition applying abuse of discretion review. The court concluded that

dismissal under Rule 41(b) was not an abuse of discretion because Petitioner did not file

a completed form or pay the fee by the deadline identified in the trial court’s order. The

court expressly did not reach jurisdictional arguments or any aspect of the merits because

the dismissal rested solely on failure to prosecute.

3. Consequence. As a result no court has addressed whether the complaint plausibly stated a

Fifth Amendment takings claim or considered any due process concerns regarding

administration of in forma pauperis requirements. The case was terminated on an

administrative ground without the use of lesser measures that could have preserved

access to an initial merits screen while imposing ho prejudice on the Government.

IX.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

a. Rule 41(b) dismissal for in forma pauperis form defects without lesser

measures or a real opportunity to cure imposes a severe sanction on indigent

pro se litigants and raises due process concerns.

Dismissal for failure to prosecute is a last resort. When the asserted defect is informational or

clerical in an in forma pauperis application courts should ordinarily provide a meaningful chance

to correct the deficiency consider targeted extensions or lesser measures and weigh the absence

of prejudice to the Government. Proceeding directly to dismissal creates nonuniform practices

that bar indigent litigants from access to court and from constitutional adjudication. See Link v.

Wabash Railroad Co. 370 U.S. 626 629 to 633. See also Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 520 to

521 per curiam and Erickson v. Pardus 551 U.S. 89 94 per curiam emphasizing fair

accommodation for pro se filings.

6

b. The judgment foreclosed any threshold merits screening of a Tucker Act

takings claim contrary to pleading standards.

At the pleading stage sufficiency turns on plausibility rather than proof. See Bell Atlantic Corp,

v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544 555 to 557 and Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662 678 to 680. Petitioner

alleged uncompensated deprivation of property interests for which the United States may be

responsible a classic Fifth Amendment question within the money mandating framework of the

Tucker Act. See United States v. Testan 424 U.S. 392 398 to 402. Ending the case on in forma

pauperis administration prevented any assessment of whether the complaint plausibly stated a

takings claim and prevented the court from applying standard screening or targeted clarification

that would cabin issues for early resolution.

c. This case is a suitable vehicle.

The court of appeals affirmed solely on failure to prosecute and did not reach jurisdiction or

merits. The questions presented are clean recurring and outcome determinative and the record

presents a straightforward setting to clarify proper limits on Rule 41(b) use in the in forma

pauperis context and to reaffirm that constitutional money claims should receive at least

threshold plausibility review.

d. The takings questions are ripe for threshold consideration and warrant

access to an initial merits screen.

Fifth Amendment Takings claims are paradigmatic money claims within the Court of Federal

Claims jurisdiction. See Testan 424 U.S. at 398 to 402. This Court has recognized that just

compensation is the usual remedy for established takings and that courts must provide a path to

7

adjudication. See First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles 482 U.S.

304 315 to 318 and Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States 568 U.S. 23 31 to 32.

The dismissal here foreclosed even a minimal merits inquiry into whether the pleaded

deprivation of identified property interests stated a plausible claim for compensation. That

outcome chills constitutional litigation by indigent litigants and invites procedural terminations

unrelated to the merits of takings claims.

e. The decision below is in tension with RCFC 1 and with proportional case

management.

RCFC 1 provides that the rules should be construed administered and employed by the court and

the parties to secure the just speedy and inexpensive determination of every action. A brief

extension or a targeted request for a supplemental declaration on finances would have satisfied

the court’s administrative concerns while advancing the just and speedy resolution of the case.

Resort to the harsh sanction of dismissal for an informational gap in paperwork is

disproportionate where no prejudice to the Government is shown and where a short cure window

was available. The rule of reason and the canons of fair administration favor lesser measures in

this posture.

f. National importance and uniformity.

Indigent and pro se litigants routinely rely on in forma pauperis status to reach the courthouse

door. Allowing dismissal for minor or curable IFP form gaps without meaningful opportunity to

cure produces nonuniform outcomes across fora and burdens a recurring class of constitutional

claims. Clarification from this Court will promote uniform application of Rule 41(b) in harmony

8

with liberal construction for pro se filings Haines 404 U.S. at 520 to 521 and with basic pleading

standards Twombly and Iqbal. It will also confirm that courts should not allow administrative

handling of fee status to eclipse access to threshold consideration of constitutional money claims

under the Tucker Act.

X.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted. Petitioner respectfully requests

consideration by the full Court.

Signed under penalty of perjury, Title 28 USC 1746(1)

1 Timothy 1:8-11 King James Version

S

'*3-

':—s-

osepffijKOyallHouse Polinski,

Creditor, Settlor, and livin^TSuipuris Beneficiary

II Corinth’iansT5:20, Mark 4:41,

Mark 11:15-17, Matthew 21:12-13 King Jimmy

All Rights Reserved UCC 1-308

USj