Full Opinion

Case: 26-1774 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 11/09/2026 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ LOUIS A. BANKS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF DB MINOR CHILD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2026-1774 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:26-cv-00360-AOB, Judge Armando O. Bonilla. ______________________ Decided: November 9, 2026 ______________________ LOUIS A. BANKS, Washington, DC, pro se. CLAUDIA BURKE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, BRETT SHUMATE. ______________________ Before DYK, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. Case: 26-1774 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 11/09/2026 2 BANKS v. US PER CURIAM. Mr. Louis A. Banks, individually and on behalf of his minor child, DB, appeals pro se the United States Court of Federal Claims’ order dismissing his amended complaint for failure to prosecute. We affirm. BACKGROUND On March 4, 2026, Mr. Louis A. Banks, individually and on behalf of his minor child, DB, filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Federal Claims Court”). SAppx6–8. 1 Mr. Banks alleged a breach of contract claim, providing no details as to the contract apart from it being a “non-procurement contract.” SAppx6–7. Mr. Banks also alleged an “unlawful agency ac- tion” claim, broadly alleging that “[d]efendant acted arbi- trarily, capriciously, and not in accordance with law in administering the contract.” SAppx7. Mr. Banks re- quested “[c]ompensatory monetary damages” of $100 mil- lion. SAppx8. On March 13, 2026, the Federal Claims Court ordered Mr. Banks to file an amended complaint with “additional information” that would allow the court to (1) determine whether it can exercise jurisdiction over the case and (2) properly assess the merits of Mr. Banks’ claims. SAppx13–15 (“March 13, 2026 Order”). The court ordered Mr. Banks to provide “a description of the contract at issue, citations to the applicable rules and regulations, and an at- tribution of the relevant conduct to a United States agency or official.” SAppx14. The court noted that failure to com- ply “will result in the dismissal of this action” pursuant to either (1) Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) for failure to adequately demonstrate the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction or (2) RCFC 41(b) for 1 “SAppx” refers to the corrected supplemental ap- pendix accompanying the appellee’s responding brief. Case: 26-1774 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 11/09/2026 BANKS v. US 3 failure to prosecute or comply with the court’s rules or a court order. SAppx14–15. Mr. Banks re-filed his original complaint, having only updated the date, signature, and presiding judge. See SAppx18–19. The Federal Claims Court rejected the com- plaint and ordered Mr. Banks to once again file an amended complaint that included, “at a minimum,” the fol- lowing: 1. A description of the “non-procurement contract” Mr. Banks claims was breached (he may also at- tach a copy of the alleged contract); 2. The identity of the federal government agency(ies) or official(s) who allegedly breached the non-procurement contract; and 3. A description of the action(s) taken by federal government agency(ies) or official(s) that caused or constituted a breach of the non-procurement con- tract. SAppx18–19 (“March 25, 2026 Order”). The March 25, 2026 Order noted that failure to comply “will result in the dismissal of this action” either under RCFC 12(h)(3) or RCFC 41(b). SAppx19. Mr. Banks filed a motion to file an amended complaint, with a new complaint attached to the motion. SAppx26–27. The Federal Claims Court deemed the amended complaint filed but ordered dismissal of the complaint under RCFC 41(b) for failing to comply with the March 13 and March 25, 2026 Orders. SAppx3–5 (“Dismissal Order”). Specifically, the court noted that although Mr. Banks in- corporated additional information in this amended com- plaint, such as legal authority, the names of several federal agencies in the case caption, and the name of the Clerk of Court of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia as a party to the lawsuit, Mr. Banks still failed to comply with the March 13 and March 25, 2026 Orders. Case: 26-1774 Document: 24 Page: 4 Filed: 11/09/2026 4 BANKS v. US SAppx4. The court noted that Mr. Banks failed to attach or otherwise describe a “valid, binding, and enforceable non-procurement contract” and failed to describe any ac- tions taken by federal government agencies or officials that would constitute a breach of the alleged contract. Id. (in- ternal quotation marks omitted). The court then noted that, “[i]n addition to violating the Court’s March 13 and March 25, 2026 orders, Mr. Banks’ most recent amended complaint is too bare to allow the Court to properly assess the jurisdictional propriety of his claims or the legal plau- sibility of his assertions.” Id. For these reasons, the court dismissed the complaint pursuant to RCFC 41(b). Id. Mr. Banks filed a motion for reconsideration of the Dis- missal Order, arguing that he complied with the March 13 and March 25, 2026 Orders because he filed a timely amended complaint. See SAppx1. The Federal Claims Court denied the motion, explaining that the March 13 and March 25, 2026 Orders not only required timely filing of an amended complaint but required additional information concerning Mr. Banks’ two claims, information that Mr. Banks failed to include in his amended complaint. SAppx2. Mr. Banks appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). DISCUSSION Pursuant to RCFC 41(b), the Federal Claims Court may dismiss a case on its own motion “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of the court.” We review a dismissal pursuant to RCFC 41(b) for an abuse of discretion. Kadin Corp. v. United States, 782 F.2d 175, 176 (Fed. Cir. 1986). An abuse of discretion occurs when a court “made a clear error of judgment . . . or exercised its discretion based on an error of law or clearly erroneous fact finding.” Qingdao Taifa Grp. Co. v. United States, 581 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation modified). Case: 26-1774 Document: 24 Page: 5 Filed: 11/09/2026 BANKS v. US 5 We see no abuse of discretion here. The Federal Claims Court ordered Mr. Banks twice, on March 13, 2026 and on March 25, 2026, to file an amended complaint that con- tained specific information concerning his claims. SAppx13–15; SAppx18–19. On both occasions, and with- out any valid justification, Mr. Banks filed an amended complaint without most of the additional information or- dered. Only following Mr. Banks’ second failure to comply with its orders did the Federal Claims Court dismiss Mr. Banks’ complaint pursuant to RCFC 41(b). SAppx4–5. Under these circumstances, the Federal Claims Court did not abuse its discretion. See Kadin, 782 F.2d at 176 (hold- ing no abuse of discretion for dismissing case under RCFC 41(b) when party “repeatedly and without valid justifica- tion ignored . . . court rules”). Mr. Banks, however, argues that dismissal was an abuse of discretion because he “timely” filed his amended complaint by the deadlines set in the Federal Claim Court’s March 13 and March 25, 2026 Orders. Informal Appellant Br. 1–3. Even if he timely filed, Mr. Banks did not comply with the orders. Mr. Banks failed to include in his most recent amended complaint most of the information re- quired by the March 13 and March 25, 2026 Orders. The Federal Claims Court thus did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his case. See Kadin, 782 F.2d at 176. CONCLUSION We have considered Mr. Banks’ remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Federal Claims Court’s dismissal of Mr. Banks’ complaint. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.