Chadda v. Gillepsie ( 2005 )

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-18-2005
Chadda v. Gillepsie
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-1940
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Chadda v. Gillepsie" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 830.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/830
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
DPS-225 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-1940
________________
SOLANGE CHADDA,
I REPRESENT “WE THE PEOPLE,”
v.
ED GILLEPSIE; DICK CHENEY/BUSH 2004 CAMPAIGN; CONDOLEZZA RICE;
GEORGE W. BUSH; RICK PERRY, THE GOVERNOR OF TEXAS
Solange Chadda,
Appellant
_______________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-4207)
District Judge: Honorable R. Barclay Surrick
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
May 5, 2005
Before: ROTH, BARRY and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: July 18, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Solange Chadda appeals from a District Court order granting Appellees’ motions to
dismiss her complaint. Appellees move this Court to summarily affirm the District Court’s
order. Because no substantial question is presented, we will grant Appellees’ motions and
affirm the order of the District Court. L.A.R. 27.4.
On September 3, 2004, Chadda filed a complaint which is largely unintelligible.
Even after considering the complaint and two amended versions, the District Court could
not discern the basis of the suit. In dismissing for lack of standing, failure to state a claim,
and other reasons, it stated the filings “consist of what appears to be paranoid, delusional
rantings against the Defendants and the current administration.” Chadda v. Gillespie, No.
04-4207, slip op. at 2 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2005). Chadda appealed and the Appellees
moved for summary affirmance. Chadda responded. The motions are ripe for review.
We must first address whether Chadda has standing to sue. See Storino v. Borough
of Point Pleasant Beach, 322 F.3d 293, 296 (3d Cir. 2003). To have standing, a plaintiff
must establish (1) an injury in fact–i.e., an invasion that is “concrete and particularized, . . .
not hypothetical and conjectural”; (2) “a causal connection between the injury and the
conduct complained of”; and (3) the injury must be redressable. Id. (citations omitted).
We agree with the District Court that Chadda lacks standing. We can piece
together no more than a conjectural abstract injury from Chadda’s pleadings. It appears
that Chadda believes the current administration stole her land and mineral rights, but she
identifies no specific asset or incident. She also presents a vague First Amendment claim,
but it is left to the imagination how her rights were violated. Accordingly, her abstract and
hypothetical injuries cannot amount to an injury in fact.
2
For the foregoing reasons, no substantial question is presented and we will grant
Appellees’ motions and affirm the District Court’s order dismissing the complaint.