UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KENNETH JONES, Plaintiff,


### v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, etal., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 12-1546 (RJL)



# ____________________________ )

## ~ MEMORANDUM OPINION (Junes- , 2013) (Dkts. ##8, 22, 23) On September 17, 2012,prose plaintiffKenneth W. Jones ("Jones" or "plaintiff') filed the instant action against the United States ofAmerica and several non-federal entities and persons, seeking $75 million in damages due to "fright, shock, and mental anguish." See Compl. at 2 [Dkt. #1]. On September 26, 2012, plaintiff joinedthe Honorable Danny Boggs and Solomon Oliver, federaljudges in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, to the action. Pl.'s Mot. to Amend [Dkt. #2]. On December4, 2012, plaintifffiled an Amended Complaint listing all current defendants in the caption. 1 See Am. Com pl. [Dkt. #18]. Defendant United States ofAmerica has filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuantto Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(l) and 12b(6). [Dkt. #8]. Defendant Lynn Mudra

1The Amended Complaint lists as defendants: (1) the United States ofAmerica; (2) Bryant & Stratton College; (3) Mr. Clifford Wallace; (4) Sgt. Timothy Patton; (5) Mr. Lynn Mudra; (6) John Doe; (7) Mr. Solomon Oliver; and (8) Mr. Danny Boggs. Am. Compl.has filed a Motion to Dismisspursuantto Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3). [Dkt. #22]. TheFederal Judges have filed a Motion to Dismisspursuant to Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(1), (2), (3), and (6). [Dkt. #23]. Upon consideration ofthe parties' pleadings, relevant law, and the entire record herein, defendants' motions to dismiss are all GRANTED. 

### STANDARD OFREVIEW Federal courts are courts oflimitedjurisdiction and the lawpresumes that "acause lies outside this limitedjurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian LifeIns. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citation omitted). Because "subject-matterjurisdiction is an 'Art. III as well as a statutory requirement[,]
... no action oftheparties can confer subjectmatterjurisdictionupon a federal court."' Akinseye v. Districtof Columbia, 339 F.3d 970,971 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quotingIns. Corp. oflr. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982)). On a motionto dismiss for lack ofsubject-matter jurisdictionpursuantto Rule 12(b)(1 ), the plaintiffbears the burden ofestablishing that the court has subject-matterjurisdiction. Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999); Rasulv. Bush, 215 F. Supp. 2d 55, 61 (D.D.C. 2002) (Kotelly, J.) (citing McNuttv. Gen. MotorsAcceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-83 (1936)), rev'don other grounds sub nom.,Al Odah v. UnitedStates, 103 F. App'x 676 (D.C. Cir. 2004). To determine whether it hasjurisdiction overthe claim, a court may consider materials outside the pleadings. Herbert v. Nat'!Acad. ofScis., 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

2

### BACKGROUND The events giving rise to plaintiffs claims occurred in the Northern District of Ohio, where plaintiffresides and has been a frequent filer ofsuits. Plaintiffalleges that defendants Lynn Mudra and Timothy Patton, homicide investigators, violated his civil rights in the course ofa law enforcement investigation that occurred there. Specifically, plaintiffclaims that Mudra and Patton divulged sensitive information aboutplaintiffin the course ofinvestigating the death ofplaintiffs wife, Carline T. Jones. See Am. Compl. at 6-8. This information allegedly affected Plaintiffs "federal financial assistance." !d. Plaintiffalso alleges that the Dean ofBryant& Stratton College, Clifford Wallace, wrongfully prevented him from receiving his college transcript until he paid his tuition bill. See id. at 9-13. Plaintifffurther alleges that Cleveland, Ohio law enforcement deprived him due process oflaw by failing to prosecute his neighbor Beverly Cooper for wrongfully obtaining one ofplaintiffsprescriptions from Walgreens. See id. at 15-16. Additionally, plaintiffcomplains about decisions made by the Federal Judges in prior cases involving plaintiff. See id. at 8, 11. Plaintiffhas filed numerous suits in the Northern District ofOhio making similar allegations. On October 15, 2003, the United States District Court for the Northern District ofOhiopermanently enjoinedMr. Jones from filing new suits before obtaining leave ofcourt. See Mudra Mot. to Dismiss Ex. A (Jones v. UnitedStates, No. 1:03-CV1597 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 15, 2003)) at 8. On January 24, 2011, plaintifffiled a case in this court against the United States and Bryant & Stratton College, among others. See Mudra

3Mot. to Dismiss Ex. B (Jones v. UnitedStates, No. 1: 11-CV-2636 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 21, 2012)) at 1-2. That action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District ofOhio, where it was dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements set forth in the court's order ofOctober 15, 2003. See id. at 2-3. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion for Change ofVenue and aMotion for New Trial, which
were also denied. See id. at 3-5. ANALYSIS This Court dismisses plaintiff's claims as to the United States ofAmerica and the Federal Judges pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(l). Because the Federal Government, its agencies, and its employees acting in their official capacity have sovereign immunity absent a waiver, plaintiff's claims against these defendants must be dismissed for lack ofsubject-matterjurisdiction. See F.D.IC. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994); Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89, 102-04 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Where a plaintiffseeks monetary damages against a federal agency for torts committed by federal employees, the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), is the only possible basis forjurisdiction. See Epps v. US. Atty. Gen., 575 F. Supp. 2d 232, 238 (D.D.C. 2008). The FTCA is a limited waiver ofthe United States' sovereign immunity and renders the Federal Government liable for certain torts ofits employees committed within the scope oftheir employment. GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 903 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Before initiating an FTCA suit, a claimant must "file [with the agency] (1) a written statement sufficiently describing the injury to

4enable the agency to begin its own investigation, and (2) a sum-certain damages claim." !d. at 919. Here, plaintiffhas failed to satisfy this administrative-filing requirement, which is ajurisdictionalprerequisite to bringing an FTCA claim. See id. at 904-05; Bowden v. UnitedStates, 106 F.3d 433, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Plaintiffalso complains about decisions the Federal Judges issued in cases he brought in their courts. See Am. Compl. at 8, 11. Federaljudges, however, have "absolutejudicial immunity from suits for money damages for all actions taken in [their] judicial capacity, unless these actions are taken in the complete absence ofall jurisdiction." Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The actions about which plaintiffcomplains were well within the Federal Judges'judicial capacity and jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Federal Judges named in the suits as defendants are entitled to absolutejudicial immunity for all claims made against them in the Amended Complaint. Next, this Court must dismiss plaintiffs claims as to the non-federal defendants2 under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack ofpersonaljurisdiction. Plaintiff has not met his burden ofestablishing that specificjurisdiction comports with the District's long-arm statute and the requirements ofconstitutional due process. See FC Inv. Grp. LCv. IFXMkts., Ltd., 529 F.3d 1087, 1094-96 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Int'lShoe Co.
v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310,316 (1945) (holding thatthe requirements ofdue process
are satisfied where defendant has "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that
2 The non-federal defendants include Bryant & Stratton College, Mr. Clifford Wallace, Sgt. TimothyPatton, Mr. Lynn Mudra, and John Doe. See Am. Compl. 5the maintenance ofthe suit does not offend traditional notions offair play and substantial justice") (quotations and citations omitted). Underthe District's long-arm statute, local courts may exercise specificjurisdiction over aperson for claims that arise from the person's "transacting any business
... contracting to supply services
... [or] causing tortious injury" in the District. D.C. Code§ 13-423(a). Because plaintiff's claims do not arise out ofany ofthese situations, however, this font of jurisdiction is unavailable. Plaintiffhas also failed to demonstrate that any ofthe non-federal defendants reside less than one hundred miles from the courthouse ofthis Court or that any ofthe non-federal defendants are not subject to personaljurisdiction in at least one other state's courts of generaljurisdiction. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(k). Because neither the original complaint,
nor the amended complaint, alleges any contacts between the District and non-federal defendants, it would offend constitutional due process for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, all claims against the non-federal defendants are dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(2).

6CONCLUSION For all ofthe foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant United States of America's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #8]; GRANTS defendant Lynn Mudra's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #22]; and GRANTS defendants' Danny Boggs' and Solomon Oliver's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #23]. An Order consistentwith this decision accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

# 4~ RICHARD N United States DistrictJudge

7