Harris v. United States

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Deyoe R Harris, No. CV-20-00337-TUC-JGZ

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 United States of America,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff has filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) against the United States of America and an 16 Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 2.) Plaintiff asks the Court to 17 “compel Congress” to make rape and child molestation mandatory capital crimes. Plaintiff 18 hopes that capital punishment will “stop and deter” these crimes. The Court will dismiss 19 Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. 20 I. Standing 21 “Article III of the U.S. Constitution authorizes the judiciary to adjudicate only 22 ‘cases’ or ‘controversies.’ The doctrine of standing is ‘an essential and unchanging part of 23 the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.’” Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 24 889 F.3d 956, 967 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 25 (1992)). To establish standing, Plaintiff must have “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that 26 is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be 27 redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 28 (2016). 1 Plaintiff’s injury must be personal and individualized, such that the Plaintiff has a 2 “direct stake in the outcome” of the case. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 705-06 3 (2013) (quoting Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64 (1997)). “[A] 4 ‘generalized grievance,’ no matter how sincere, is insufficient to confer standing.” Id. at 5 706. Generalized grievances that raise “abstract questions of wide public significance” are 6 “most appropriately addressed in the representative branches.” San Diego Cty. Gun Rights 7 Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1131 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Valley Forge Christian Coll. 8 v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474-75 (1982)). 9 Plaintiff’s generalized interest in stopping and deterring rape and child molestation does 10 not constitute an injury. Therefore, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action. 11 II. Sovereign Immunity 12 The United States may not be sued without its consent. United States v. Navajo 13 Nation, 537 U.S. 488, 502 (2003). “Jurisdiction over any suit against the Government 14 requires a clear statement from the United States waiving sovereign immunity together 15 with a claim falling within the terms of the waiver.” United States v. White Mountain 16 Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 472 (2003) (internal citations omitted). A person who wishes 17 to sue the United States has the burden of demonstrating that a claim “is covered by a 18 specific statutory authorization to sue the United States.” Weber v. Dep’t of Veterans 19 Affairs, 521 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). 20 Plaintiff has not pointed to a specific waiver of sovereign immunity that authorizes 21 this action. Because waiver of sovereign immunity is a prerequisite for jurisdiction, Navajo 22 Nation, 537 U.S. at 502, Plaintiff has failed to establish that the Court has jurisdiction over 23 this claim. 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that the Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 3|| (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH || PREJUDICE. 6 Dated this 19th day of August, 2020. 7 8 *

10 □ Honorable J cml 7; United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-