Legal Opinion

Musungayi v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided February 27, 2009No. 08-548TPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SWEENEY, Judge.

Before the court in the above-captioned case are plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). Plaintiff, in his pro se complaint, seeks a refund of income taxes paid in tax year 1992.1 The court grants plaintiffs meritorious application to proceed in forma pau-peris. However, because plaintiffs refund claim is untimely, the court must dismiss plaintiffs complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

I.…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  3. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2006
  4. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
  5. Hughes v. RoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1980

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Murdock v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
  2. Floyd v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
  3. Doyle v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
  4. Cadrecha v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
  5. Donna Ebeyer and Glenn Ebeyer v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API