Kellett v. United States

Case: 24-1712 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 11/12/2024

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________

ASHLEY KELLETT, individually and on behalf of her minor children PJK, PGK, and adult disabled children, CEG, and MBG, JOSHUA GERMANY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

ANNA GRACE GERMANY,

Plaintiff v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2024-1712 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-00455-ZNS, Judge Zachary N. Somers.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Ashley Kellett filed an action in the United States Court of Federal Claims “pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983” based on “continuing retaliation . . . by the state of Case: 24-1712 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 11/12/2024 2 KELLETT v. US Louisiana and [its] political officials and agencies.” Dkt. No. 1 at 1–2 (capitalization omitted). On March 29, 2024, the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and subse- quently denied Ms. Kellett’s motion for reconsideration. She appealed and has filed her opening brief.

We conclude that summary affirmance is appropriate here because there is “no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F. 3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that it lacked jurisdiction over Ms. Kel- lett’s claims against Louisiana and state officials. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941). The court was likewise clearly correct that it lacked jurisdiction over Ms. Kellett’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (vesting jurisdiction with federal dis- trict courts to hear civil rights claims). 1 We have consid- ered Ms. Kellett’s remaining arguments and conclude that they do not support a contrary result.

Accordingly, 1 Given the disposition of the case, we need not con- sider whether Ms. Kellett can represent her children in this litigation. See Fed. Cir. R. 47.3(a) (“An individual person may choose . . . to proceed [on appeal] without counsel but may not be represented by a non-[attorney].”); Berrios v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 564 F.3d 130, 133–35 (2d Cir. 2009). Case: 24-1712 Document: 43 Page: 3 Filed: 11/12/2024 KELLETT v. US 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims is summarily affirmed.

(2) All pending motions are denied. (3) Each party shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT November 12, 2024

Date