Frank E. Knighten, Jr. v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
FRANK E. KNIGHTEN, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1563
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-00043-AOB, Judge Armando O. Bonilla.
______________________
Decided: October 10, 2024
______________________
F RANK EDWARD KNIGHTEN, JR., Detroit, MI, pro se.
TARA K. H OGAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. M CCARTHY.
______________________
Before D YK, CHEN, and S TOLL, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM.
Case: 24-1563 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 10/10/2024

-- 1 of 4 --

KNIGHTEN v. US 2
Frank E. Knighten, Jr. appeals pro se from a decision
of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims
Court”) dismissing his complaint sua sponte for lack of sub-
ject matter jurisdiction on the ground that he seeks relief
for the actions of his private employer and not the United
States. See Order of Dismissal, Knighten v. United States,
No. 24-cv-43-AOB (Fed. Cl. Jan. 31, 2024), ECF No. 7. Be-
cause the Claims Court did not err in dismissing Mr.
Knighten’s complaint, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Knighten previously worked for the private com-
pany Tec Group Inc. (“Tec Group”). Mr. Knighten alleges
that Tec Group unlawfully retaliated against him when it
terminated his employment shortly after he complained of
a colleague’s racially discriminatory conduct. He also sug-
gests that Tec Group’s reason for his termination—failure
to submit a legally compliant Form I-9 for tax purposes—
was pretextual.
On January 10, 2024, Mr. Knighten filed suit against
the United States in the Claims Court, seeking $25 million
in damages and other relief.
The Claims Court dismissed Mr. Knighten’s complaint
sua sponte, concluding that it did not possess subject mat-
ter jurisdiction because Mr. Knighten’s claims relate to dis-
crimination in private employment.
Mr. Knighten appealed. We have jurisdiction pursu-
ant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review dismissals by the Claims Court for lack of
jurisdiction de novo. Frazer v. United States, 288 F.3d
1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The plaintiff must establish
the court’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir.
2002). Unrepresented plaintiffs are not held to as strin-
Case: 24-1563 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 10/10/2024

-- 2 of 4 --

KNIGHTEN v. US 3
gent a pleading standard as represented parties. See
Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 15 (1980). However, this prin-
ciple does not relieve an unrepresented plaintiff of the ob-
ligation to establish jurisdiction. See Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S.
Dep’t of Lab., 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Mr. Knighten contends that the Claims Court should
not have dismissed his complaint because he has alleged
that Tec Group discriminated and retaliated against him
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He
argues that the “[s]pirit of Tit[le] VII demands vigilant en-
forcement” and urges us to conclude that the Claims Court
possesses jurisdiction over his claims. Appellant Inf. Br.
2.1
The Claims Court possesses jurisdiction over “any
claim against the United States 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 liquidated or
unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” 28
U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The Claims Court does not possess ju-
risdiction over claims against private employers. See
United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941).
Although Mr. Knighten nominally sues the United
States as a defendant, his allegations are directed to the
supposed misconduct of private entities and individuals.
His complaint is devoid of any indication that the United
States played a role in the actions of his private employer.
Moreover, Title VII itself confers jurisdiction only on the
federal district courts, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), and the
1 Mr. Knighten’s informal brief is accompanied by
what appear to be additional exhibits that were not filed
with the Claims Court. Our review is based on the evi-
dence as presented to the Claims Court, Fed. R. App. P.
10(a)(1), so we do not consider Mr. Knighten’s new exhibits.
Case: 24-1563 Document: 26 Page: 3 Filed: 10/10/2024

-- 3 of 4 --

KNIGHTEN v. US 4
Claims Court is not a district court. See Gardner v. United
States, 439 F. App’x 879, 881 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“The Court
of Federal Claims . . . does not have jurisdiction over Title
VII claims.”).
The Claims Court correctly recognized that it did not
have subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Knighten’s
claims. See Sherwood, 312 U.S. at 588.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1563 Document: 26 Page: 4 Filed: 10/10/2024

-- 4 of 4 --