In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 16-53 (Filed: March 8, 2021) *************************************** JASON D. ENGLE, * * Plaintiff, * RCFC 54(d); Attorney’s Fees; 28 * U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Equal v. * Access to Justice Act; Motion to * Strike * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * *************************************** Jason D. Engle, O’Fallon, IL, pro se. William James Grimaldi, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, counsel for Defendant. ORDER AND OPINION DIETZ, Judge. Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) and Rule 54(d) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (RCFC), Bill of Costs, and Motion to Supplement Motion for Attorney’s Fees. Pl.’s Mot. for Att’y Fees (hereinafter “Pl.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 12; Bill of Costs, ECF No. 13; Pl.’s Mot. to Suppl., ECF No. 14. Also before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Bill of Costs, and Motion to Supplement. See Def.’s Mot. to Strike (hereinafter “Def.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 15. For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion, Bill of Costs, and Motion to Supplement shall be stricken. I. BACKGROUND Jason Engle, a pro se plaintiff, filed his complaint on January 12, 2016 alleging that his involuntary discharge from the United States Air Force violated federal law and service regulations and policies. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Specifically, Mr. Engle argues that because he was within six years of qualifying for retirement when he was passed over for promotion a second time, he should have been selected for continuation rather than being discharged. Id. Upon Defendant’s unopposed motion, the Court consolidated sixteen related cases (including this case), instructing all filings be made under Baude v. United States, No. 16-49C. See Order, ECF No. 7. Following a remand to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) and subsequent cross-motions for judgment upon the administrative record in the lead case, the Court issued an opinion granting Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record. Baude v. United States, 137 Fed. Cl. 441, 462 (2018). No. 16-49C, Dkt. No. 52. Mr. Engle appealed and, on April 4, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion vacating this Court’s grant of Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, reversing this Court’s denial of Mr. Engle’s cross motion for summary judgment, and ordering this Court to remand the case to the AFBCMR with instructions to convene a special board for reconsideration of Mr. Engle’s non-continuation. See Baude v. United States, 955 F.3d 1290, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2020). On November 19, 2020, this Court remanded the matter to the AFBCMR with instructions consistent with the Federal Circuit’s opinion. Id; see Remanding Order, ECF No. 11. This Court also stayed the case and instructed the parties to file joint status reports indicating the status of the remand proceedings. Id. The following day, November 20, 2020, Mr. Engle …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals