Reedom v. Vilsack

District of Columbia

Reedom v. Vilsack

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedNovember 29, 2012

DocketCivil Action No. 2012-1927

StatusPublished

This text of Reedom v. Vilsack (Reedom v. Vilsack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reedom v. Vilsack, (D.D.C. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED

»" ff f 3 2a2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT C|erk, U.S. D:sz»)ct & Bankru t FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA C°U"S fG-' the District of Cotu‘r)rlli|ya JAMES REEDOM, Plaintiff,

v. CivilActionNo.

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

"Article III of the United States Constitution limits the judicial power to deciding ‘Cases and Controversies."’ In re Navy Chaplaz'ncy, 534 F.3d 756, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting U.S. Const. art. lll, § 2), cerl. a’enied, _ U.S. _, 129 S. Ct. 1918 (2009). A party has standing for purposes of Article lll 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, Inc. v. Unz`ted States, 103 F.3d 994, 998 (D.C. Cir. l997) (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 other individuals and "African American Nonprofits" which

had applied for and wrongfully had been denied loans and grants purportedly available through

programs of the United States Department of Agriculture. Compl. at l. He further alleges that defendant failed to investigate claims of discrimination brought since 1983. Id. at l-2. Plaintiff has no standing to assert claims on behalf of any organization or any other individual, and,

therefore, the complaint must be dismissed. An Order is issued separately.

P»\lrti/>-

Uni&ed States District Judge

DATE; /\/»4, /§7 )A`( 5/

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

FILED

»" ff f 3 2a2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT C|erk, U.S. D:sz»)ct & Bankru t FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA C°U"S fG-' the District of Cotu‘r)rlli|ya JAMES REEDOM, Plaintiff,

v. CivilActionNo.

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

"Article III of the United States Constitution limits the judicial power to deciding ‘Cases and Controversies."’ In re Navy Chaplaz'ncy, 534 F.3d 756, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting U.S. Const. art. lll, § 2), cerl. a’enied, _ U.S. _, 129 S. Ct. 1918 (2009). A party has standing for purposes of Article lll 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, Inc. v. Unz`ted States, 103 F.3d 994, 998 (D.C. Cir. l997) (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 other individuals and "African American Nonprofits" which

had applied for and wrongfully had been denied loans and grants purportedly available through

programs of the United States Department of Agriculture. Compl. at l. He further alleges that defendant failed to investigate claims of discrimination brought since 1983. Id. at l-2. Plaintiff has no standing to assert claims on behalf of any organization or any other individual, and,

therefore, the complaint must be dismissed. An Order is issued separately.

P»\lrti/>-

Uni&ed States District Judge

DATE; /\/»4, /§7 )A`( 5/

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Reedom v. Vilsack, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reedom-v-vilsack-dcd-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack