Modena v. Neff
United States Court of Federal Claims
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HORN, Judge.
The plaintiffs complaint is unclear, confusing and fails to raise issues over which the United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction. Furthermore, although plaintiff claims in forma pauperis status in his complaint, no application in support thereof was filed. Mr. Modena claims, among other allegations, that “[pjlaintiff took title to his birth certificate in 200[0]2 and filed in the International Military Registry3 to have highest claim to his Identity, etc_” As such, Mr. Modena argues that the he is a “copyrighted and bonded man” and filed this action pursuant…
2Cases cited68 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Estelle v. GambleSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
63 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hall v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010