ORlGlNAL ` FlLED
, , JUL 19 2013
In the Umted States Court of Federal Clalms U_S_ wm OF
FEDEF{AL CLAlMS
No. 18-841C
(Filed: July 19, 2018)
****$*$*$$*******$**$$$**************
EDWARD THOMAS KENNEDY,
Pro Se Plaintiff; Sua Sponte Dismissal;
Subj ect Matter Jurisdiction; RCFC
lZ(h)(B); Proper Defendant; Civil Rights
Claims; Tort Claims; Criminal Matters;
Frivolous Claims; Collateral Attack of
Prior Decisions; Equitable Relief;
28 U.S.C. § 1631; ln Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES,
'X‘i€-K-)f-X-%%'ii"§£'
Defendant.
$****$******$************************
Edward Thomas Kennedv, Breinigsville, PA, pro se.
Sean King, United States Department of lustice, Washington, DC, for defendant
OPINION AND ORDER
SWEENEY, Cliief Judge
In this case, plaintiff Edward Thomas Kcnnedy, proceeding pro se, appears to allege that
various federal and state actors kept him in constructive financial imprisonment after a state
judge in Texas declined to vacate a judgment against him. Mr. Kennedy Seeks $30 million in
damages from each of several individuals and entities identified in his complaint plus attorney
fees, costs, interest, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Mr. Kennedy also filed an application
to proceed in forma pauperis As explained below, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider Mr.
Kennedy’s claims. Thus, without awaiting a response from defendant, the court grants Mr.
Kennedy’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismisses his complaint
I. BACKGROUND
On November 10, 2003, Mr. Kennedy filed a document titled “Petition in the Nature of a
Petition to Vacate a Void Judgrnent and Collateral Attack Ol