Reedom v. Crappell

D.C. Circuit

Reedom v. Crappell

493 F. App'x 113

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 5, 2012

DocketNo. 12-7075

StatusPublished

This text of 493 F. App'x 113 (Reedom v. Crappell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reedom v. Crappell, 493 F. App'x 113 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on appellant’s brief. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(3). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed July 23, 2012 be affirmed. Appellant brought suit seeking redress for injuries his brother sustained in an automobile accident, “[b]ut one cannot have standing in federal court by asserting an injury to someone else.” Vietnam Veterans of America v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 654, 662 (D.C.Cir.2010); see also Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) (“[T]he plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.”). Therefore, the district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on appellant’s brief. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(3). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed July 23, 2012 be affirmed. Appellant brought suit seeking redress for injuries his brother sustained in an automobile accident, “[b]ut one cannot have standing in federal court by asserting an injury to someone else.” Vietnam Veterans of America v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 654, 662 (D.C.Cir.2010); see also Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) (“[T]he plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.”). Therefore, the district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

493 F. App'x 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reedom-v-crappell-cadc-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack