Kennington v. Office of Special Counsel et al
Filing
15
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION-the court DISMISSES the complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and DENIES 9 Motion to Amend/Correct; terminating 13 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 9/9/11. (jmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION
TERRY KENNINGTON,
ORDER and
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL, et al.,
Case No. 1:11-cv-5 CW
Defendants.
Now before the court is a report and recommendation by Magistrate Paul Warner
recommending that this case be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(i). The
court agrees that this action should be dismissed. The court, however, does not dismiss this case
because it is frivolous. Instead, the court believes that it is more appropriate to dismiss under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii), because the complaint fails to state a claim.
In short, Mr. Kennington does not allege that the Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”) or
the other Defendants, all OSC lawyers, terminated him in violation of his rights.1 Instead, he
bases this action for compensatory and punitive damages on his allegations that the OSC wrongly
handled and rejected his constitutional and statutory claims against the Internal Revenue Service,
1
The court notes that Mr. Kennington did file an action against the Internal Revenue
Service and its employees for discrimination in this district. See Case No. 1:10cv9 TC. Judge
Campbell dismissed that action without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
See Order of Aug. 27, 2010, at Dkt. No. 24 in Case. No. 1:10-cv-9 TC.
his former employer. But a cause of action for damages does not lie against the OSC or its
employees for its handling of a claim. Cf. Sheerer v. Rose State College, 950 F.2d 661, 663
(10th Cir. 1991) (“[N]o cause of action against the EEOC exists for challenges to its processing
of a claim.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) and Woodruff v. McPhie, 383 Fed.
Appx. 5, 6-7 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (cert. denied sub nom Woodruff v. Grundmann, 131 S. Ct. 1504
(2011) (no cause of action against the Merit Systems Protection Board for handling of a case).
It should be noted that Mr. Kennington has moved to amend his complaint. (Dkt. No. 9.)
From what the court gathers, Mr. Kennington intends to continue to bring similar allegations and
assert similar claims against the OSC and its employees. He has not, however, filed with the
court a copy of the proposed amended complaint. At this point, there is no way for the court to
determine whether his motion has merit and it does not appear that it will. The court therefore
DENIES that motion.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the court DISMISSES the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and DENIES Mr. Kennington’s motion to amend the complaint.
SO ORDERED this 9th day of September, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?