Milner v. United States Supreme Court ( 2018 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
JOHN MILNER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 18-cv-2782 (KBJ)
)
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME )
COURT, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On November 28, 2018, pro se plaintiff John Milner (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant
complaint against the Supreme Court of the United States and Chief Justice John
Roberts. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that he went to the Supreme Court on
Friday, November 23, 2018, the day after Thanksgiving, only to find that the building
was closed. (Id. at 1.) He claims that this closure is a “betrayal of public trust” and
violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id.) Plaintiff requests “$2 million due to the severe impact
this has on society[.]” (Id. at 2.)
This Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and, as explained below, has
determined that Plaintiff has failed to establish that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, it will DISMISS the instant Complaint sua
sponte. Hurt v. U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit Banc, 264 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (“It was proper for the district court to analyze its own jurisdiction sua sponte
and dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.”) (citation omitted).
Discussion
“Article III of the United States Constitution limits the judicial power to
deciding ‘Cases and Controversies.’” In re Navy Chaplaincy, 534 F.3d 756, 759 (D.C.
Cir. 2008) (quoting U.S. Const. art. III, § 2). “One of the controlling elements in the
definition of a case or controversy under Article III is standing.” Hein v. Freedom
From Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587 (2007) (internal quotation marks and
alteration omitted). A party has standing for purposes of Article III 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. United States, 103 F.3d 994, 998 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
(quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)). Furthermore,
the Supreme Court has “consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally
available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s
interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws . . . does not state an Article
III case or controversy.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573–74.
A plaintiff “bears the burden of showing that he has standing” with respect to the
claims that he pleads. See Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 79 F. Supp. 3d 174,
186 (D.D.C.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), aff’d, 808 F.3d 905 (D.C.
Cir. 2015)). “Significantly, a ‘defect of standing is a defect in subject matter
jurisdiction[,]’” Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D. C. Cir. 1987), and federal
courts are barred from “consider[ing] the merits of a [claim] over which it without
jurisdiction[,]” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 379 (1981); see
2
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring courts to dismiss a complaint “any time” subject
matter jurisdiction is absent); Kretchmar v. F.B.I., 32 F. Supp. 3d 49, 58 (D.D.C. 2014)
(dismissing claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff failed to allege
an injury sufficient to create Article III standing).
Here, the Plaintiff does not show that he personally suffered any injury as a
result of the Supreme Court being closed the day after Thanksgiving. Rather, Plaintiff
expressly states that he filed this suit because he “[doesn’t] think government offices
should be shut down on a non-holiday day[,]” (Compl. at 1), and because he believes
that this closure had a “severe impact . . . on society[,]” (id. at 2). These allegations are
nothing more than the kind of “generally available grievance[s] about government” that
the Supreme Court has long held are insufficient to vest a plaintiff with Article III
standing. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573–74.
Conclusion
Because Plaintiff has not established that he has personally suffered any injury
as a result of the Supreme Court being closed on November 28, 2018, he has no
standing to bring the instant complaint, and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this matter. Accordingly, this Court will DISMISS the complaint with prejudice.
A separate appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: December 20, 2018 Ketanji Brown Jackson
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
United States District Judge
3