L REISSUED FOR PUBLICATION
JAN 5 2017
OSM
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
]n tbe mlntteb ~tates Court of jfeberal <!Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. l4-984V
r--· ~LED
Filed: December 9, 2016
:'\....... 9 .t:.il~
L.l:.:., -
. ,, ...
************* *
GAENA MARIA LANEY, * U.S. CuCRT Of=
FC '·p . '- CL/\IM']
*
Petitioner, * Dismissal; Failure to Prosecute;
* Failure to Follow Court Orders.
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Gaena Laney, pro se, Greenbrier, TN
Adriana Teitel, United States Department ofJustice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING PETITION 1
Roth, Special Master:
On October 14, 20 14, petitioner filed a petition for compensation in the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2 alleging that she was injured by a vaccine listed
on the Vaccine Injury Table. See generally, Petition, ECF No. 1. At that time, petitioner
was represented by counsel. Counsel subsequently filed a motion to be relieved, which
1
Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, it
will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-
Govcrnment Act of2002 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)). In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed
redacted decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within the requirements
of that provision, I will delete such material from public access.
2
The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Chi ldhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L.
No 99-660, JOO Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter
'·Vaccine Act" or " the Act"). Hereafter, individual section references will be to 42 U. S.C. §
300aa of the Act.
was granted on March 17, 2016. See Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, filed
February 17. 2016, ECF No. 37; Order, issued March 17, 20 16, ECF No. 38.
On May 4, 2016, the undersigned held a status conference with Ms. Laney and
respondent's counsel; at this time, petitioner advised the Court that she was in the process
of looking for alternative counsel. Following that status conference, the undersigned
issued an order requiring petitioner, Ms. Gaena Laney, to file a Status Report by no later
than July 5, 2016, updating the Court on her progress in retaining a new attorney. A list
of attorneys experienced in the Vaccine Program was attached to the order, which was
forwarded to petitioner by mail. Status Report Order, issued May 4, 20 16, ECF No. 41.
On August 25, 2016, chambers staff contacted Ms. Laney via email at
gaenagi rl@gmail.com, requesting that she submit the required Status Report as soon as
possible. Ms. Laney did not respond to this communication. On September 9, 2016, the
undersigned issued an order setting a status conference for Tuesday, October 25, 2016, at
2:00 pm. Status Conference Order, issued September 9, 2016, ECF No. 49. Chambers
staff attempted to contact M s. Laney, via the telephone number as listed on the case
docket, three times on October 25: at 2:00 pm. 2:20 pm, and fin ally at 3:00 pm. Ms.
Laney did not answer any of these calls. J\ message was left for Ms. Laney to contact
chambers. There was no contact from the petitioner.
On October 31, 2016, the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring
petitioner to file a status report or otherwise show cause for why her case should not be
dismissed for fail ure to prosecute, by no later than Tuesday, December 6, 20 16. Petitioner
was advised that failure to respond to court orders would result in the dismissal of her
claim. Petitioner did not file a status report, nor did she contact the Court in any way to
indicate that she still intended to prosecute her case.
It is petitioner's duty to prosecute her case, and to follow court orders. Tsekouras
v. Sec'y, HHS, 26 Cl. Ct. 439 ( 1992), aff'dper curiam, 991 F.2d8 10 (Fed. Cir. 1993);
Sapharas v. Sec'y, HHS, 35 Fed. Cl. 503 (1996); Vaccine Rule 2 l (b). Accordingly, this
case is dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to follow courts orders. The
clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2