NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`LEONARD D. FUQUA,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2019-1860
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
`in No. 1:19-cv-00125-LAS, Senior Judge Loren A. Smith.
`______________________
`
`Decided: September 12, 2019
`______________________
`
`LEONARD D. FUQUA, Riverdale, IL, pro se.
`
`
` RETA EMMA BEZAK, Commercial Litigation Branch,
`Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
`ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
`JOSEPH H. HUNT, REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., ROBERT
`EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.
` ______________________
`
`Before DYK, LINN, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`LEONARD D. FUQUA,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2019-1860
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
`in No. 1:19-cv-00125-LAS, Senior Judge Loren A. Smith.
`______________________
`
`Decided: September 12, 2019
`______________________
`
`LEONARD D. FUQUA, Riverdale, IL, pro se.
`
`
` RETA EMMA BEZAK, Commercial Litigation Branch,
`Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
`ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
`JOSEPH H. HUNT, REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., ROBERT
`EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.
` ______________________
`
`Before DYK, LINN, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`
`2
`
`FUQUA v. UNITED STATES
`
`
`PER CURIAM.
`Leonard D. Fuqua appeals a decision from the Court of
`Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his complaint
`for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
`BACKGROUND
`Leonard Fuqua (“Fuqua”), a former postal worker, orig-
`inally brought suit in the Northern District of Illinois
`against the Postmaster General, the Postal Service, the
`National Postal Mail Handlers Union (“national union”),
`and the national union’s local affiliate. In his first com-
`plaint, he alleged that the Postal Service discriminated
`against him based on his age and breached a collective bar-
`gaining agreement’s protections for senior employees. He
`also brought claims against the national union and its local
`affiliate for breach of the union’s duty of fair representa-
`tion. Fuqua alleged that the national union and its local
`affiliate violated this duty by failing to challenge allegedly
`discriminatory actions by the Postal Service. The national
`union was served with the complaint and entered an ap-
`pearance.
`The record hereafter is somewhat confusing. It ap-
`pears that a second amended complaint, filed on December
`14, 2012, continued to name national union. But in
`Fuqua’s second amended verified complaint, filed on Janu-
`ary 15, 2013, Fuqua did not name the national union as a
`defendant, naming only the union’s local affiliate and the
`Postal Service. After the national union did not respond to
`Fuqua’s second amended verified complaint, Fuqua sought
`a default judgment from the district court. The district
`court clerk signed and docketed an order of default judg-
`ment submitted by Fuqua. Several days later, the district
`court effectively vacated the default judgment, denying
`Fuqua’s request for entry of default judgment as “inappro-
`priate” because the national union had in fact appeared be-
`fore the court. The district court ultimately dismissed
`Fuqua’s claims against the Postal Service for breach of the
`
`
`
`FUQUA v. UNITED STATES
`
`
`3
`
`collective bargaining agreement and his claims against the
`union’s local affiliate for breach of its duty of fair represen-
`tation. The district court also granted summary judgment
`for the Postal Service on the discrimination claim.
`Fuqua appealed the district court judgement to the
`Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Cir-
`cuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment deci-
`sion and its dismissal of Fuqua’s other claims against the
`Postal Service and the union’s local affiliate. The Seventh
`Circuit also upheld the district court’s decision to set aside
`the entry of default. It reasoned that “the national union
`was not subject to a default judgment because Fuqua had
`not named [the national union] as a defendant in his Sec-
`ond . . .Verified Complaint[], . . .which supersede[d] and
`void[ed] any previous complaint that named the national
`union as a defendant.” Fuqua was thus “not entitled to
`judgment against a non-party.”
`After a petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by
`the Supreme Court, Fuqua filed suit in the Court of Federal
`Claims, requesting the amount of default judgment he
`sought in district court and alleging that the district court
`violated his rights when it denied him a default judgement.
`The Claims Court sua sponte concluded that it lacked sub-
`ject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of another
`court and dismissed Fuqua’s complaint. Fuqua appeals.
`DISCUSSION
`The subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Federal
`Claims is a question of law that we review de novo. Allusti-
`arte v. United States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`We find that the Claims Court correctly determined that it
`lacks jurisdiction to hear Fuqua’s case. Under the Tucker
`Act, the Claims Court has jurisdiction over cases “founded
`either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any
`regulation of an executive department, or upon any express
`or implied contract with the United States, or for
`
`
`
`4
`
`FUQUA v. UNITED STATES
`
`
`liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding
`in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
`Fuqua appears to argue that the district court erred
`because he was requesting a default judgment based on the
`national union’s failure to respond to an earlier complaint
`to which the national union was a party, and not the second
`amended verified complaint, which no longer named the
`national union. The Claims Court accurately noted below
`that “Plaintiff [is ultimately] attempt[ing] to impute legal
`liability upon the United States for an alleged wrongful ap-
`plication of law in a federal court.” Order at 2. As we’ve
`stated in prior decisions, “the Court of Federal Claims does
`not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of district
`courts or the clerks of district courts relating to proceedings
`before those courts.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378,
`380 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also Shinnecock Indian Nation v.
`United States, 782 F.3d 1345, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (collect-
`ing cases).
`Accordingly, the Claims Court correctly concluded that
`it lacked jurisdiction and properly dismissed Fuqua’s com-
`plaint.
`
`AFFIRMED
`COSTS
`
`No costs.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
