Schulz v. United States Federal Reserve System

370 F. App'x 201

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: March 23, 2010
• Docket: 08-4810-cv (L), 09-1229-cv (CON)
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Sharpe, /.), which denied injunctive relief and dismissed his complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing de novo. Fulton v. Goord, 591 F.3d 37, 41 (2d Cir.2009). With the minor exception of some First Amendment claims not at issue here, a person’s status as an American citizen or taxpayer is insufficient to confer on him or her standing to bring a lawsuit seeking to hold a government action or a statute unconstitutional in the absence of an articulable injury-in-fact that is distinct from the injury suffered by all such citizens or taxpayers. See, e.g., Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 593, 127 S.Ct. 2553, 168 L.Ed.2d 424 (2007) (“[T]he payment of taxes is generally not enough to establish standing to challenge an action taken by the Federal Government.”); Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm, to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 226-27, 94 S.Ct. 2925, 41 L.Ed.2d 706 (1974) (finding a person’s interest as a citizen “too abstract to constitute a ‘case or controversy appropriate for judicial resolution”). The district court was correct that Appellant does not have standing, and thus federal courts have no jurisdiction over his claims. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 344-45,126 S.Ct. 1854, 164 L.Ed.2d 589 (2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.