MCKNIGHT v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims·Decided July 30, 2025·No. 25-1091·Published

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

LESLIE MCKNIGHT and JUSTIN BOOKER,

Plaintiffs, No. 25-1091 v. Filed July 30, 2025 THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER Dismissing Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction

Leslie McKnight and Justin Booker, proceeding without an attorney, filed a complaint in

this court alleging that an individual named Thomas Armstrong conspired to deprive plaintiffs of

their rights, withheld court filings, retaliated against them, and coerced and intimidated them.

Plaintiffs request damages for emotional and physical harm and a cease-and-desist order. This

court does not have jurisdiction over private individuals or over proceedings in other courts. The

court will therefore dismiss the complaint sua sponte under rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the Court

of Federal Claims (RCFC). The court will grant plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

I. Background

Ms. McKnight and her fiancé, Mr. Booker, allege that Thomas Armstrong has violated

their due process rights in a civil case in a Nevada court. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiffs only identify

Thomas Armstrong by name; they do not specify their relationship to him. See generally ECF No.

1. It appears that Thomas Armstrong may be the judge in a municipal court in Nevada. Plaintiffs

allege that Judge Armstrong, among other things, “violated multiple processes for a case,” “failed

1 to send notices as the law requires,” and “conspired to deprive [them] of [their] right to due pro-

cess.” Id. Plaintiffs also allege that Judge Armstrong coerced, intimidated, and retaliated against

them and their children. Id. at 1, 3.

II. Discussion

The Tucker Act primarily defines this court’s jurisdiction. It gives the court exclusive ju-

risdiction to decide specific types of monetary claims “against the United States.” Kanemoto v.

Reno, 41 F.3d 641, 644 (Fed. Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).

A “plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance

of the evidence.” Estes Express Lines v. United States, 739 F.3d 689, 692 (Fed. Cir. 2014). This

court has traditionally held the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff to a less stringent standard than those

of a litigant represented by counsel. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (stating that pro se

complaints “however inartfully pleaded are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings

drafted by lawyers” (marks omitted)). The court has therefore exercised its discretion in this case

to examine the pleadings and record “to see if [the pro se] plaintiff has a cause of action somewhere

displayed.” Ruderer v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 456, 468 (1969). Regardless, pro se plaintiffs still

have the burden of establishing the court’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See

Landreth v. United States, 797 F. App’x 521, 523 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Taylor v. United States,

303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).

This court must dismiss an action if it “determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter

jurisdiction.” RCFC 12(h)(3); see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83,

94 (1998) (“Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function

remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” (quotation marks

omitted)). Therefore, even if not disputed by a party, the court may challenge subject-matter juris-

diction on its own. Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

2 A. The court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ complaint

Even liberally construed, this court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ complaint.

The complaint alleges harms caused by a private individual or a judge of another court. This court

lacks jurisdiction over private individuals, other courts, state and local entities, and people em-

ployed by state and local entities; it only has jurisdiction over claims against the federal govern-

ment. 28 U.S.C. § 1491; United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (“[I]f the relief

sought is against others than the United States the suit as to them must be ignored as beyond the

jurisdiction of the court.” (citations omitted)); Curry v. United States, 787 F. App’x 720, 722-23

(Fed. Cir. 2019) (holding that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear cases asserted

against states, localities, and employees of those governments in both their official and personal

capacities); Martin v. United States, No. 22-1810, 2023 WL 1878576, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10,

2023) (“[T]he court can only hear claims against the government; thus, it cannot hear claims

brought against individuals.”); Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir.

2001) (“[T]he Court of Federal Claims cannot entertain a taking claim that requires the court to

scrutinize the actions of another tribunal.” (quotation marks omitted)). Thus, the court must dis-

miss plaintiffs’ claims against Judge Armstrong.

B. Plaintiffs may proceed in form pauperis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a plaintiff may move to proceed in forma pauperis, entitling her

to relief from the costs and fees associated with initiating a lawsuit. The court has discretion to

grant in forma pauperis status whenever it determines, based on the plaintiff’s submitted financial

information, that the plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee. Brestle v. United States, 139 Fed. Cl.

95, 103 (2018); see also Colida v. Panasonic Corp. of North America, 374 F. App’x 37, 38 (Fed.

Cir. 2010). The threshold to establish the need to proceed in forma pauperis is not high. Fiebelkorn

v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 59, 62 (2007); see also Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335

3 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). “[P]auper status does not require absolute destitution[;] the question is

whether the court costs can be paid without undue hardship.” Chamberlain v. United States, 655

Fed. App’x 822, 825 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted).

Ms. McKnight states that she is employed at a restaurant where she has a monthly net

income of $950. ECF No. 2 at 1. She has $27 in savings and financial responsibilities that include

rent, bills, car payments, credit card debt, and childcare. Id. at 2. Ms. McKnight’s disclosed finan-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI