# $fifr$trdA[

llntbc @nite! 

# Ststes @ourt

# otjfelersl @taims No. 

### l3-568C (Filed: January 31, 2014) 

### (Not

### for Publication)
* * * * * * * * * * * * !t * * * * * * * *** * * * * * 

### ANTHONY C. 

### KENNEY.



### Plaintiff,

v. 

### THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant. 

### *r,*********** **t ******r.*****

ORDER OF 

### DISMISSAL


## UI[!{\[S,Judse. This matter comes before 

### the Court 

### on Defendant's 

### motion

## to dismiss 

### Plaintiff s complaint 

### for lack

### of subject-matter 

### jurisdiction under 

### Rule 

### 12(b)(l) of the Rules 

### of the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims 

### ("RCFC"). Because 

### Plaintiff hasfailed 

### to allege any actionable 

### claim against 

### the United States,

### the Court grants Defendant's 

### motion and dismisses the complaint 

### for Iack

### of subject-matter

### jurisdiction. Background
On August 

### 9,2013, Plaintiff pro se,Anthony C. Kenney,

### filed acomplaint, seeking 

### relief against the 

### "U.S. District Court 

### of Columbia 

### Circuit." Compl. I

## . The complaint is largely a 

### list 

### of statutory codes and constitutional provisions, including, 

### "title

### VII of the

### civil rights 

### act," the 

### "first admendment 

### [sic]," "antitrust law," and 

### "(42 u.s.c. 1981)section 

### [sic]." 

## Id. Plaintiff fails 

### to explain 

### why he 

### is suingthe 

### United States 

### District Court

### for the District 

### of Columbia or possibly the United States Court 

### of Appeals

### for the 

### District 

### of Columbia 

### Circuit but apparently asksthis Court to submit the caseto mediation or totransfer the caseto an unnamed state court. 

# FILED

JAN 3 

### 1 2014 U.S, 

### cUURT

### oF FEDERAL 

### CLA'MS

### The case appears 

## to relate

## to previous 

### litigation 

### Plaintiff brought against Swift

Transportation Company 

### ("Swift Transportation"). 

### Id. at

## 4-19.' After Swift Transportation declined 

### to hire 

### Plaintiff as a

### truck driver, 

### Plaintifffiled suit against the company 

### in the United States 

### District Court

### for the Eastem 

### District of Arkansas on March 

### 2,2000, chiefly alleging that 

### Swift Transportation did not hire him "because 

### of his race (black) 

### inviolation ofTitle 

### VII ofthe 

### Civil Rights 

### Act

### of 1964



### . . .

## ." Id. 

### at 

### 18. The parties entered 

### into an arbitration agreement on March 25, 2004, "agreeing

### to submit 

### all claims alleged 

### in the case 

### to binding arbitration



### . . . ." 

### Id. The arbitrator dismissed 

### Plaintiffs claims 

### with prejudice,

### finding that 

### "Swift Transportation legitimately declined to hire Kenney because hesubmitted an incomplete 

### application." Id. at 19. 

### Plaintiff then 

### filed a 

### litany 

### of actions regardingthe arbitration award,

### filing claims, 

### for example, 

### in district courts 

### in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, and 

### the 

### District 

### of Columbia. 

### Def.'s Mot. 

### to Dismiss 

### App.

### Al-20; Compl. 

### 3-19. The 

### United States 

### District Court 

### for the 

### District of Columbia dismissed 

### Plaintiff s lawsuit against 

### Swift Transportation onJuly 

### 31,2012, 

### for failing to comply 

### with Rule 8(a) 

### of the Federal Rules

### of 

### Civil Procedure. 

### Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss App. 

### A19-20. In particular, the Court found that 

### Plaintiff "neither articulates abasis 

### for 

### this Court's 

### jurisdiction, states 

### a claim showing 

### an entitlement 

### to relief, 

### nor demands any particular 

### form 

### of 

## relief." Id. at

## A20. Plaintiff also

### filed two cases 

### in the Court

### of Federal Claims that were dismissed 

### for lack

### ofjurisdiction. Kennev

### v. United States, 

### No. l2-521 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 

### 24,2012); Kenney v. United Stares, 

### No. l0-471 (Fed. Cl. July 

### 30,2010). Additionally, 

### Plaintiffs complaint includes a February 

### l, 2013 letter

### from the United States Court 

### of Appeals for the 

### District of Columbia 

### Circuit's Appellate Mediation Program denying 

### Plaintiff s request to mediate his

### judicial misconduct complaint, and 

### Plaintiff appears 

### to be challenging thedenial

### of this request. Compl. at 3. Discussion When deciding 

### a motion 

### to dismiss under 

### Rule 

### 12(bxl), the Court

### of Federal Claims assumes

### all of plaintiff sfactual allegations are 

### true and draws 

### "all reasonable inferences 

### in 

### plaintiffsfavor." Henke

### v. United States,60 

### F.3d

### 795,797 (Fed.

### Cir. 1995); Goel 

### v. United States, 62 Fed. 

### Cl. 804, 806 

### (2004). 

### A plaintiff bears the burden 

### of establishing subjecr-matter 

### jurisdiction 

### by a preponderance 

### of the 

### evidence. Reynolds

### v.Army 

## &Air Force Exch. Serv., 

### 846F.2d746,748 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1988); BearinePoint. Inc.

### v. United States,77 Fed. 

### Cl. 189, 193 

### (2007). 

## If subj ect-matter 

### jurisdiction cannot be established, the 

### Court must dismiss 

### plaintiff s 

### complaint. RCFC 

### l2(hX3); see also Tindle v. United States, 56 Fed. 

### Cl.337,341 (2003).
The 

### Court holds a pgq se

### plaintiffs pleadings 

### to a less stringent standard than litigants represented 

### by counsel. Haines 

### v. Kemer, 404 

### U.S. 519,520 (1972) (per

### curiam). The Federal 

### Circuit has cautioned 

### that

## it "does 

### not expect a

### plq se 

### litigantto be made to

### jump through a confusing array of procedural 

### hoops." Mendozav. 

### MeritSys. Prot. 

### Bd.,966F.2d650,653 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1992). Pro se 

### plaintiffs, however, must

### still satis$/ the Court's

### jurisdictional requirements. Minehan v. United States, 75 Fed.

### C|.249,253 (2007\. 

# ' Pages 

### 3through 19

### of the 

### complaint include previous decisions, letters, and

### filings from various courts and proceedings conceming 

### Plaintiff sactions against 

### Swift Transportation. 

### An arbitration award is attached at pages

### l8 and 19

### ofthe complaint.

### In this case, 

### Plaintiff appears 

### to be suing either the 

### United States 

### District Courtfor the



### District 

### of Columbia or the 

### United States Court 

### of Appeals

### for the 

### District 

### of Columbia 

### Circuit 

### in relation

### to 

### Plaintiffs longstanding 

### claims against 

### Swift Transportation. 

### Compl.

# l, l8-19; 

### Dei's Mot. 

### to Dismiss, 

### App.

### A19-20. Even construing 

### the complaint 

### liberally, Plaintiff has 

### failed

## to establish subject-matter

### jurisdiction. 

## It is well established 

### thatthe

### only proper defendant 

### in any matter belorethis Court is the United States. Stephenson 

### v. United States, 58 Fed. 

### Cl. 186, 190 (2003) 

### (citing United States 

### v. Sherwood, 312 

### U.S. 584, 588 

### (1941)). The United States is not liable 

### for the actions 

### of nonfederal parties who are not agents 

### of the United States.Vlahakis v. United States,215 Ct. 

### Cl. 1018, 

### l0l8-19 (1978); Fullard

### v. United States, 78 Fed. 

### Cl. 294,300-01 (2007); Steohenson, 

### 58 Fed. 

### Cl. 

### at 190. The Courr cannot 

### review the 

### District Court's dismissal

### of Plaintiff s lawsuit against 

### Swift Transportation because 

### this Court "does not have

### jurisdiction to review the decisions 

### of district courts



### . . . relating 

### to proceedings before those 

### courts." Joshua 

### v. United States,

### l7 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994). Nor can this 

### court entertain 

### Plaintiffs judicial misconduct 

### claims. o'connor v. united states, 

### Nos. 09- 334C, 09-335C &. 

### 09-348C,2009 

### WL 4020235, 

### at 

### *2 (Fed. 

### Cl. Nov. 

### 6, 2009) (,,Because the statute regarding

### judicial misconduct does not mandatethe payment

### of money

### for itsviolation, no such case may be brought in this court.").

Defendant's motion to dismiss is

### GRANTED. The Clerk 

### of Court is directed to dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack

### ofjurisdiction. 

### t,'\ /:.t.. ,) , ---..

### t'^-, 

# h'wt*tt/&n 

# 6YA ?r/.U--
Judge