Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Kenneth Leslie Caldwell, Petitioner v. United States

Docket #

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Kenneth Leslie Caldwell - PETITIONER

VS.

r

United States - RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

APPENDIX A, FOR PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Kenneth Leslie Caldwell

(Name)

P.O. Box 583. Wendover. UT 84083

(Mailing Address only, no home)

1716V534-9868

(Phone)

2017emailforward @ gmail.com

(Email)

APPENDIX A

" Capital Case ’’ / " Capital Case Possible "

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

APPENDIX A

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX A

.A1-A98

INDEX TO APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

...ORDER OF DOCKET # 24-1122, U.S. COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT.

A1-A3

...ORDER OF DOCKET # 24-1122, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

A4-A5

...ORDER OF DOCKET # 23-320, U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

...OPINION AND ORDER OF DOCKET # 23-320, U.S. COURT OF CLAIMS

A6

A7-A9

A10

...JUDGMENT OF DOCKET # 23-320, U.S. COURT OF CLAIMS

...OPINION OF JUDGE HUSKY, WITH JUDGE GRATTON AND JUDGE

BRAILSFORD CONCURRING, DOCKET # 49782 COURT OF

.A11-A15

APPEALS OF IDAHO

...VARIOUS ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS OF IDAHO DISTRICT COURT INCLUDING

VENUE CHANGE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DISMISSAL,

AND DENIAL OF MONETARY RELIEF, DOCKET # CV10-22-1275

A16-A33

...ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REVIEW, DOCKET # 49782-2022,

SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO

A34

...REMITTITUR, DOCKET # 49782-2022; SUPREME/APPEALS COURT OF

li

I

.A3 5

IDAHO

...ORDER OF DOCKET # 24-1122, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, DENYING

LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED RESPONSE, TREATING OBJECTION VIA

LETTER(TO JUDGE) AS A GRANTED PETITION FOR REHEARING

.A36-A37

...ORDER OF DOCKET # 24-1122, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, DENYING

.A38-A39

PETITION FOR REHEARING

...TWO PAGES OF COMPLAINT, SUBMITTED TO IDAHO DISTRICT

COURT ON 1/18/2022 WITH UNITED STATES CODE AND UNITED

STATES CONSTITUTION MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 20

.A40-A41

....TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES FOR APPELLANT’S BRIEF

OF DOCKET #49782, IDAHO SUPREME COURT, SHOWING UNITED STATES

CONSTITUTION MENTIONED AND SWATH OF RELEVANT CASELAW.

.A42-A45

...PAGE 2 OF INFORMAL BRIEF FOR DOCKET # 24-1122, U.S. COURT

OF APPEALS, SHOWING REFERENCE TO THE UNITED STATES CODE

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

,A46

...OBJECTION VIA LETTER, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, # 24-1122

.A47-A49

...PAGES 401-407 OF DOC 1-2 OF DOCKET # 24-1122 OF U.S. COURT OF

APPEALS, UN-HIGHLIGHTED CLEARER COPIES MAY BE AVAILABLE

AS DOCUMENT 11 OF DOCKET # 23-320 IN U.S. COURT OF CLAIMS

...PAGES 370-395 OF DOC 1-2 OF DOCKET # 24-1122 OF U.S. COURT OF

APPEALS, UN-HIGHLIGHTED CLEARER COPIES MAY BE AVAILABLE AS

DOCUMENT 10-1 OF DOCKET # 23-320 IN U.S. COURT OF CLAIMS OR

in

.A50-A56

AS PETITION FOR REVIEW AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION

OF DOCKET # 49782-2022 IN SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO

.A57-A82

...PAGES 399-400 OF DOC 1-2 OF DOCKET # 24-1122 OF U.S. COURT OF

APPEALS, UN-HIGHLIGHTED CLEARER COPIES MAY BE AVAILABLE AS

DOCUMENT 10 OF DOCKET # 23-320 IN U.S. COURT OF CLAIMS, MOTION

A83-A84

FOR COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL

...PAGE 309 OF DOC 1-2 OF DOCKET # 24-1122 OF U.S. COURT OF

APPEALS, UN-HIGHLIGHTED CLEARER COPIES MAY BE AVAILABLE

AS R Vol. II, p. 167 OF DOCKET # 49782 OF SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO,

.A85

AFFIDAVIT ABOUT THE N-WORD

...PAGES 282-287 OF DOC 1-2 OF DOCKET # 24-1122 OF U.S. COURT OF

APPEALS, UN-HIGHLIGHTED CLEARER COPIES MAY BE AVAILABLE AS R

Vol. II, p. 17-22 OF DOCKET # 49782 OF SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO,

BRUTALITIES/CASUALTIES AFTER NEWS MEDIA LIED

A86-A91

...PAGES 138-143, and 126 OF DOC 1-2 OF DOCKET # 24-1122 OF U.S. COURT OF

APPEALS, UN-HIGHLIGHTED CLEARER COPIES MAY BE AVAILABLE AS R

Vol. II, p. 17-22 OF DOCKET # 49782 OF SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO,

AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO DISTRICT COURT OF IDAHO FOLLOWED

BY THE FIRST PAGE OF MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS

iv

A92-A98

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

PAGE NUMBER

CASES

Documents from Docket # 24-1122 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal

A1-A5, A36-A39, A46-A98

Circuit

Documents from Docket # 23-320 in the United States Court of Federal Claims

A6-A10

Documents from Docket # 49782 in the Supreme/Appeals

A11-A15, A34-A35, A42-A45

Court of Idaho

Documents from the Record of Docket # 49782-2022 in the Supreme

.A16-A33, A40-A41

Court of Idaho

v

The copies of documents/illustrations within this Appendix A are intended to

represent exact information of what the certified/authenticated copies from the Clerk’s

Office(s) may show, and inquiry for certified/authenticated copies from the Clerk’s Office(s)

may be done to prove exactness.

Respectfully submitted,

juMijjcm

Date:

Name: Kenneth Leslie Caldwell

Mailing Address only (no home]: RO. Box 583, Wendover, UT 84083

Phone: (716)534-9868

Email: 2017emailforward@gmail.com

vi

Case: 24-1122

Document: 20

Page: 1

Filed: 02/05/2024

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

Hmteti States Court of Appeals:

for tfje jfeberal Circuit

KENNETH LESLIE CALDWELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

2024-1122

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims

in No. l:23-cv-00320-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.

ON MOTION

Per Curiam.

ORDER

Kenneth Leslie Caldwell appeals from the judgment of

the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his

complaint. The United States moves for summary affir­

mance. ECF No. 12. Mr. Caldwell opposes, submits his

opening brief, and moves for various relief, including

“emergency relief to be determined by [the] court,” ECF No.

6 at 1; for expedited restitution of at least $80,000, ECF No.

APPENDIX A

Page 'A1'

Case: 24-1122

2

Document: 20

Page: 2

Filed: 02/05/2024

CALDWELL v. US

8-1 at 3; summary judgment, ECF No. 10-1; and

“$1,000,000 as a permanent injunction,” ECF No. 17-1 at 2.

Mr. Caldwell previously sued the Judicial Administra­

tion of Idaho and Idaho-based media companies in Idaho

state court. After that suit was unsuccessful, he filed the

underlying complaint at the Court of Federal Claims, al­

leging the Judicial Administration of Idaho as well as other

state and federal officials and entities violated various

laws, including provisions of U.S. Code title 18 (criminal

code); U.S. Code title 42 (civil rights); 10 U.S.C. §§ 251—254;

the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Four­

teenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and antitrust

laws. Mr. Caldwell also requested that the Court of Fed­

eral Claims compel the Patent and Trademark Office to

grant him intellectual property rights to 28 “ideas” he iden­

tified in his complaint. The Court of Federal Claims

granted the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

This appeal followed.

The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, limits the jurisdic­

tion of the Court of Federal Claims to claims for money

damages against the United States based on sources of sub­

stantive law that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating

compensation by the Federal Government.” United States

v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) (citation omit­

ted). For the reasons explained in the Court of Federal

Claims’s Opinion and Order, none of the sources of law

identified in the complaint were shown to create a right to

monetary damages against the United States.* And while

* Although the complaint generally referenced the

Fifth Amendment, the Court of Federal Claims correctly

explained that Mr. Caldwell did not allege any taking of

property that could plausibly support a claim under the

Takings Clause and the trial court lacks jurisdiction over

any alleged violation of the Due Process Clause. See LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

A2

Case: 24-1122

Document: 20

Page: 3

Filed: 02/05/2024

3

CALDWELL V. US

28 U.S.C. § 1498 authorizes the trial court to award dam­

ages for the use or manufacture of a covered patent or cop­

yright by or on behalf of the United States, Mr. Caldwell’s

complaint failed to identify any issued patent or copyright

to support such a claim.

We have considered Mr. Caldwell’s arguments in his

brief, but find they fail to a raise a non-frivolous basis for

error. Accordingly, 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) (citation omitted).

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The United States’s motion for summary affir­

mance is granted, and the judgment of the United States

Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.

(2) All other motions are denied.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

For the Court

February 5. 2024

Date

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court

A3

Case: 24-1122

Document: 23

Page: 1

Filed: 02/22/2024

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

fHniteb States Court of Appeals

for tfje Jfeberal Circuit

KENNETH LESLIE CALDWELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

2024-1122

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims

in No. l:23-cv-00320-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.

ON MOTION

Per Curiam.

ORDER

On February 10, 2024, Kenneth Leslie Caldwell moved

for leave to file an amended response to the motion for sum­

mary affirmance [ECF No. 21].

On February 13, 2024, Mr. Caldwell filed a document,

with attachments, entitled “Objection to Document 20 via

Letter” [ECF No. 22].

Upon consideration thereof,

Case: 24-1122

Document: 23

2

Page: 2

Filed: 02/22/2024

CALDWELL V. US

It Is Ordered That:

(1) ECF No. 21 is denied.

(2) ECF No. 22 is construed as a petition for panel re­

hearing and is accepted for filing as such. The petition for

panel rehearing will be considered in due course.

For the Court

February 22, 2024

Date

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court

Case l:23-cy-00320-SSS Document 21 Filed 08/31/23 Page 1 of 3

In t\)t Mniteb

Court of Jfrberal Claims

No. 23-320C

(Filed: August 31, 2023)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

'k'k'k'kie'k'k'k'k'k'k'k&'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k’k'k'k'k'k'k 'k'k'kJe'k'k’k'k’kie'k ft

*

*

*

Plaintiff,

*

*

v.

*

*

THE UNITED STATES,

*

*

Defendant.

*

***************************************

KENNETH LESLIE CALDWELL

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Kenneth Leslie Caldwell, proceeding pro se, makes a variety of

allegations and seeks various forms of relief. See Complaint (ECF 1). The government

has moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).1 The motion to dismiss is

GRANTED.

The Tucker Act limits this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction — its authority

to pass judgment on the cases before it — to specific types of claims, most commonly

non-tort claims for money damages. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); see also Brown

v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The Court of Federal Claims is

a court of limited jurisdiction.”).2 Perhaps confusingly for pro se litigants, it is not a

forum for “federal claims” generally. Claims that are outside the Court’s jurisdiction

must be dismissed. RCFC 12(h)(3). “In determining jurisdiction, a court must accept

as true all undisputed facts asserted in the plaintiffs complaint and draw all

reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United

States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d

795, 797 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). “Although a pro se plaintiffs complaint is held to a less

stringent standard than those prepared by counsel, pro se litigants are not excused

from meeting jurisdictional requirements.” Spengler v. United States, 688 F. App’x

917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations omitted) (citing Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9

1 See Mot. to Dismiss (ECF 12). Mr. Caldwell has filed a response (ECF 15), and the government has

filed a reply (ECF 18).

2 Mr. Caldwell mentions jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1505, but he has not pleaded that he is an

Indian or represents an Indian group.

A7

Case l:23-cv-00320-SSS Document 21 Filed 08/31/23 Page 2 of 3

(1980), and Kelley u. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987));

see also Howard-Pinson u. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 551, 553 (2006) (explaining that

pro se litigants are “entitled to a liberal construction of [their] pleadings”) (citing

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520—21 (1972)).

Most of Mr. Caldwell’s claims involve misconduct by Idaho state agencies,

courts, and officers, or by individuals and businesses. This Court, though, cannot hear

claims against defendants other than the United States, and it cannot review the

decisions of other courts. Innovair Aviation Ltd. v. United States, 632 F.3d 1336, 1344

(Fed. Cir. 2011); Jones v. United States, 440 F. App’x 916, 918 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Joshua

v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also Vehr v. United States, 117

Fed. Cl. 332, 333 (2014). This Court has no jurisdiction over claims based on state

law. Cabral v. United States, 317 F. App’x 979, 982 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Souders v.

S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth., 497 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).

Mr. Caldwell claims that certain federal agencies have failed to prevent

misconduct by the state, see Complaint at 3, and he refers to alleged rights under

several federal laws, see, e.g., id. at 30-35. Claims for money in this Court, though,

are generally premised on (1) contracts between the plaintiff and the United States

or (2) laws or constitutional provisions that require the United States to pay money

to the plaintiff. Fisher u. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing

28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)). He mentions no contract with the United States, and he has

not shown that any other federal law he mentions creates rights to money in this

Court. Binding or persuasive authority forecloses his claims as to most of those laws.

See, e.g., Jones, 440 F. App’x at 918 (criminal laws); Duncan v. United States, 446 F.

App’x 303, 305 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (18 U.S.C. § 3771); Stephens v. United States, No. 10571C, 2011 WL 222118, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 21, 2011) (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1986); Class

v. United States, No. 20-205, 2020 WL 3960342, at *4 (Fed. Cl. July 13, 2020) (10

U.S.C. § 253); United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 887 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (First

Amendment); Brown, 105 F.3d at 623 (Fourth Amendment); Trafny v. United States,

503 F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Eighth Amendment); Starnes v. United States,

162 Fed. Cl. 468, 474 (2022) (Thirteenth Amendment); Greene v. United States, No.

22-1711C, 2023 WL 3454821, at *2 (Fed. Cl. May 15, 2023) (Fourteenth Amendment);

Hufford v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 696, 703 (2009) (antitrust laws). Individuals can

pursue compensation for takings of property in this Court under the Fifth

Amendment of the United States Constitution, Acceptance Ins. Cos. Inc. v. United

States, 503 F.3d 1328, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2007), but Mr. Caldwell does not allege that

any of his property was taken.

The only claims in the complaint that might relate to the United States involve

disputes over intellectual property — specifically, Mr. Caldwell’s efforts to obtain

-2-

A8

Case l:23-cv-00320-SSS Document 21 Filed 08/31/23 Page 3 of 3

various patents and trademarks. Those claims seek non-monetary relief, see

Complaint at 15, 25, which is outside this Court’s authority to grant except “as an

incident of and collateral to” a money judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2); see also

United States u. Tohono O’Odham Nation, 563 U.S. 307, 313 (2011) (“[T]he [Court of

Federal Claims] has no general power to provide equitable relief against the

Government or its officers.”). To the extent Mr. Caldwell’s claims involve trademarks,

“no statute gives the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over trademark claims.”

Siler v. United States, 296 F. App’x 32, 33 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Although this Court can

grant relief for infringement of patents by the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), Mr.

Caldwell does not claim that he ever obtained any relevant patents or trademarks.

This Court has no jurisdiction over claims related to unissued patents, Stroughter u.

United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 755, 761-62 (2009), let alone trademarks. To the extent

Mr. Caldwell objects to the non-issuance of patents or trademarks, those claims

belong in other forums. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. §§ 1070, 1071, 1121; 35 U.S.C. §§ 134, 141,

145. Claims involving other intellectual property-related administrative actions may

be governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, but this Court lacks jurisdiction

over those claims as well. Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1313 (Fed. Cir.

2003).

I have reviewed Plaintiffs complaint in its entirety, and I am unable to identify

any claims within this Court’s jurisdiction. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is

GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction.

See Aerolineas Argentinas u. United States, 77 F.3d 1564, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[I]n

the absence of subject matter jurisdiction there can be no preclusive findings or

conclusions on the merits, and dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is without prejudice.”).

The procedural requests mentioned in Mr. Caldwell’s response to the motion to

dismiss are DENIED AS MOOT. Mr. Caldwell’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF 10)

and motion for appointment of a special master and injunctive relief (ECF 11) are

likewise DENIED AS MOOT.

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Stephen S. Schwartz

STEPHEN S. SCHWARTZ

Judge

-3-

A9

Case l:23-cv-00320-SSS Document 22. Filed 08/31/23 Page 1 of 1

In t\)t Umttb H>tate£ Court of Jfeberal Claims

No. 23-320 C

Filed: August 31, 2023

KENNETH LESLIE CALDWELL

Plaintiff

JUDGMENT

v.

THE UNITED STATES

Defendant

Pursuant to the court’s Opinion and Order, filed August 31, 2023, granting defendant’s

motion to dismiss,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this date, pursuant to Rule 58, that plaintiffs

complaint is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction.

Lisa L. Reyes

Clerk of Court

By:

'Detha A. Sadden,

Deputy Clerk

NOTE: As to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 60 days from

this date, see RCFC 58.1, re number of copies and listing of all plaintiffs. Filing fee is $505.00.

A10