Reedom v. Crappell

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: July 23, 2012
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2012-1211
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED sTATEs DISTRICT CoURT ‘*‘ »~. FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBIA

JAMES REEDOl\/l, : ;a_~. ¢. ..

Plaintiff, : v. Civil Action No. 1

SABRA A. CRAPPELL, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and her pro se complaint. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint.

"Article 111 of the United States Constitution limits the judicial power to deciding ‘Cases and Controversies."’ Irz re Navy Chaplaincy, 534 F.3d 756, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting U.S. CONST. art. Ill, § 2), cert. dem`ed, _ U.S. _, 129 S. Ct. 1918 (2009). A party has standing for purposes of Article 111 if his claims "spring from an ‘injury in fact’ -- an invasion of a legally protected interest that is ‘concrete and particularized,’ ‘actual or imminent’ and ‘fairly traceable’ to the challenged act of the defendant, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision in the federal court." Navegar, ]rzc. v. United Stales, 103 F.3d 994, 998 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wz`ldlzfe, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). Standing may be denied to a litigant who seeks to assert the rights of a third party. Navegar, 103 F.3d at 998. In the instant action, plaintiff appears to assert the rights of his brother, Robert Reedom, who allegedly was injured

severely in an accident on April 24, 2012. Plaintiff has no standing to assert claims on his

brother’s behalf, and, therefore, the complaint must be dismissed. An Order is issued separately.

United States District Judge

DATE;? 6 /