Corey Lea v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary of Agriculture, JOE LEONARD

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
COREY LEA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, THOMAS J.
VILSACK, Secretary of Agriculture, JOE
LEONARD, in his Official Capacity, DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, AND ERIC HOLDER, in his Official
Capacity,
Defendants,
AND
FARMERS NATIONAL BANK, GLORIA LYLES,
DAN HARBISON, LARRY FLOYD HINTON,
WARREN COUNTY, KENTUCKY, BARREN RIVER
HEALTH DEPARTMENT, AMY MILLIKEN, SUSAN
DAVIS, DAVID BURTON, HOY HODGES, BRYAN
DENISON, MITCH WHITTLE, CANDACE HILL,
MARK FILIP, MICHAEL SPALDING, JOHN
BOWLES, LARRY KIRBY, AND KYLE KIRBY,
Defendants-Appellees.
______________________
2014-1283
______________________
Case: 14-1283 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 04/15/2014

-- 1 of 3 --

LEA v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 2
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky in No. 1:13-cv-00110-JHM-
HBB, Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr.
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
The parties all respond to this court’s February 19,
2014 show cause order. Farmers National Bank, et. al
also moves for a determination that the appeal is frivolous
and for sanctions. The United States also moves to cor-
rect the caption in this appeal. Mr. Lea moves to proceed
in forma pauperis, although he subsequently paid the
filing fee, and to stay any action on transfer or dismissal
until the appeal is decided on the merits.
Mr. Lea’s action in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky asserted various
allegations of discrimination and violations of federal and
state laws appearing to relate to the foreclosure of his
farm property. This court is a court of limited jurisdic-
tion. 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Upon review, we conclude that
the district court’s jurisdiction did not arise in whole or in
part under the laws specified in § 1295 as defining this
court’s appellate jurisdiction. This court therefore lacks
jurisdiction over this appeal.
As to appellees’ motion for sanctions, we deem it the
better course to allow appellees to raise its arguments in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,
which has familiarity with the history of litigation be-
tween the parties. As to the parties’ other motions, the
parties may raise their arguments with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
Case: 14-1283 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 04/15/2014

-- 2 of 3 --

LEA v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 3
This appeal is transferred to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1631.
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
s30
Case: 14-1283 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 04/15/2014

-- 3 of 3 --