KENNEDY v. USA, No. 1:2018cv01028 - Document 6 (Fed. Cl. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: granting 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow. (ac7) Service on parties made.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
KENNEDY v. USA Doc. 6 ORIOI}NAL IJr tlst @nitr! 5tstts @ourt of ft[trsl @lsfms No. l8-1028C FILED (Filed: July 30,2018) (NOr * * * *'r * +,1 * * * * * :i * *,t * * * * * + ** :* :l :f *+* ro + * JUL 3 O BE PUBLISHED) ZOIE U.S. COURT OF FEDERAT CLAII!1S * EDWARD THOMAS KENNEDY, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES, Defendant. *,1 * + * :* * * * * * * *,* * * :1. *. rr {. * * * * * * * * * * +,r * + Edward Thomas Kernedy, pro se, Breinigsville, Pennsylvania' King, Trial Attomey, commercial Litigation Branch, civil Division, united states Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. Sean OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Judge. Plaintiff, Edward Thomas Kennedy, brings suit against, among others, the United States, the United States Department of Education, various state and private bar associations, law schools, the Law School Admissions Council ("LSAC"), and the Commonwealth of pennsylvania. Compl. at 1-2. Mr. Kennedy alleges that he suffered various harms, including ..trespass, tr"rpus on the case, trespass on the case vicarious liability, failure to provide a ,"publi.un form of government[,] and trover." Compl at2. He claims that "[t]he ' ' United States of America exceeded itsjurisdiction by allowing its agencies and employees to deny [him] admission to its [sic] law schools" and that by denying him admission he "was kept in constructive financial imprisonment." Compl. at 2. Specifically, he recounts that he "refused to take t[he] LSAC logic 'games' tests" and "LSAC blocked and/or refused to forward his law school applications to . . . law schools." Compl. at 4. Mr. Kennedy asserts that in this way, defendants "stole access to school and property and funds from [him] and rejected his applications." Compl. at 5. The property allegedly stolen included "private essays, pdvate data, attachments, transcripts from college and graduate school ofbusiness (MBA) submitted to . . . LSAC." Compl. at 5 n.2. ?01? 1'.'150 8000 1,3{h r+551 Dockets.Justia.com As a remedy for these alleged harms, Mr. Kennedy seeks damages of "$1'000 for each day of unlawful behavior[] for each defendant, or $500,000.00 from each defendant, whichever is greater," and for "the injur[ies] caused by defendant[s'] absence of required action, . . . $5,000 for each failure to act, or $500,000.00 from each defendant, whichever is greater." Compl. at 910. Mr. Kennedy also seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment that "defendants have acted contrary to constitutional right, power, or privilege," and an injunction, admitting him to all law schools in the united states "for both Fall 2018 and Fall 2019 [and awarding] tuition and first-class direct and indirect expenses . . . to [him] without charge." Compl at 10. Pending before the court is Mr. Kennedy's motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ l9l 5. See Pl.'s Mot. lor Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 4. Section 1915 permits "any court of the United states" to allow parties to proceed without the payment of fees upon the filing of"an alfidavit that . . . the person is unable to pay such fees." 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(aXl); see also 28 U.S.C. $ 2503(d) ("For the purpose of construing [S]ection[] . . . 1915 . . . of this title, the United States Court of Federal Claims shall be deemed to be a court of the United States"). For the reasons stated, the court grants Mr. Kennedy's motion to ptoceed in forma pauperis, but dismisses the complaint under Section 1915(e)(2)(B) and for lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Court ofFederal Claims ("RCFC") STANDARDS FOR DECISION In any case, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing jurisdiction. see Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. serv.,846F.2d746,748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The leniency afforded to a pro se litigant with respect to formalities does not relieve such a litigant from satisfying jurisdictional requiremints. Kelley v. Secretary, United States Dep't of Labor,812F.2d 13'18' ilSO 6"a. Cir. i9S7). Under the Tucker Act, this court hasjurisdiction over "any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act ofCongress or any regulation oian executive department, oI upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort." 28 U.S.C. S 1491(axl) (emphasis added); see also Moore v. Public Defender's of/ice,76 Fed. Cl. 617 , 620 (2007) rather i..Wien a plaintiffs complaint names private parties, or local, county, or state agencies, than federal agencies, this court has no jurisdiction to hear those allegations'")' This court lacks power to award injunctive relief absent specific statutory authorization. see IJnited States v. King,395 U.S. 1,2-3 (1969) (citing Glidden co. v. zdanok,370 u. s. 530, 557 (1962));UnitedStatesv.Jones,l3l U'S. 1,9(1S89); [JnitedStatesv Alire,'73U'S'(6 wall.) 573, 575 (1567); see also Halim v. united states,106 Fed. Cl.677,684-85 (2012) (citing National Air Tra:ffic controllers Ass'nv. united states, 1 60 F.3d 714,716-1',1 (Fed. Cir. 1998)) ("This court has never been afforded the general authority to issue declaratory judgments or to grant injunctive relief."). More specifically, "[t]he Tucker Act does not provide independent jurisdiciion over . . . claims for equitable relief." Taylor v. united states,l l3 Fed. cl. 17l,173 (2013). jurisdiction to decide the merits ofa case, dismissal is required as a matter of law." Gray v. Unired Stales, 69 Fed. Cl. 95, 98 (2005) (citing Ex parte McCardle, T4 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506,514 (1868); Thoen v. United States,765 F.2d 1110, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); see a/so RCFC 12(hX3) ("lfthe court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, lhe co:urt must dismiss the action.") (emphasis added). "lf a court lacks Finally, for plaintiffs proceeding or seeking to proceed informa pauperis under Section 1915, the court may screen their complaint and dismiss it if "the court determines that . . the action or appeal-is frivolous or . . . fails to state a claim on which reliefmay be granted." 28 U.S.C. $ l9t 5(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). Where the court determines that a case is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Section 1915 requires the court to dismiss the case "[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid." 28 u.s.c. $ 19ls(e)(2). ANALYSIS AII of Mr. Kennedy's claims against private or state actors or beyond the jurisdiction of this court. See Moore,76 Fed. Cl. at 620. Mr. Kennedy's claims for declaratory and injunctive reliefagainst any defendant are likewise beyond this court's jurisdiction. See Halim,106 Fed. Cl. at 684-85. Independently, Mr. Kennedy's claims lack an arguable basis in law, i e.,their "disposition is obvious." Neitzke v. llilliams,490 U.S. 319,325 (1989) C'[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."); Taylor v. United States,568 Fed. Appx. 890, 891 (Fed. Cir.2014) (citing Galloway Farms, Inc. v. United States,834 F.2d 998, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 1987)) ("A frivolous claim is one'whose disposition is obvious."'). There is no arguable basis for the assertion that the United States is responsible for the decisions ofprivate and state law schools to deny admission to applicants who refuse to take a portion of a law school admission exam. See Nietzke, 490 U.S. at 319. Mr. Kennedy's claims must be dismissed. CONCLUSION For good cause shown, Mr. Kennedy's motion to proceed in.forma pauperis is GRAN'|ED. Nevertheless, the court has determined that his claims are beyond this cou('s subject matter jurisdiction and raise unmeritorious questions of law, and thus DISMISSES his complaint. The clerk shall enter judgment in accord with this disposition. No costs. It is so ORDERED. Senior Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
