Summers v. State of Louisiana

Case: 22-30763 Document: 00516804571 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-30763
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ June 29, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Kendall Summers, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
State of Louisiana, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, as
the political entity responsible for the Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System;
Stephen Robert Russo, Doctor,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:20-CV-21
______________________________
Before Davis, Smith, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30763 Document: 00516804571 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2023
No. 22-30763
Plaintiff-Appellant Kendall Summers, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing. We AFFIRM.
I. BACKGROUND
Summers is committed to the custody of the East Louisiana Mental
Health System (“ELMHS”) in Jackson, Louisiana, after being adjudged not
guilty by reason of insanity. Summers filed this action against the State of
Louisiana, through the Department of Health (“LDOH”), and Courtney N.
Phillips, the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health (collectively
“Defendants”) alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Section
1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Summers seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief requiring LDOH to develop a
comprehensive outpatient treatment system in compliance with federal
disability laws and to order LDOH to provide him with the reasonable
accommodations he “may need to function in an outpatient basis.”
Summers also seeks damages for the discriminatory harm already caused by
LDOH.
The district court consolidated Summers’ case for all purposes other
than trial with substantively similar suits filed by seven other plaintiffs.
Following consolidation, Defendants filed a superseding motion to dismiss
plaintiffs’ claims for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The
district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that
plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims. The court gave plaintiffs
twenty-eight days to amend their complaints to cure the deficiencies
_____________________
1
Although Summers is pro se on appeal, he was represented by counsel throughout
the proceedings in the district court.
2
Case: 22-30763 Document: 00516804571 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/29/2023
No. 22-30763
identified in its judgment. Summers did not file a third amended complaint
to cure these deficiencies. He did, however, timely appeal the court’s
judgment of dismissal.
II. DISCUSSION
We review de novo a district court’s Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal for lack of
standing. 2 The party invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden of proof to
show standing. 3 “To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must show
(1) an injury in fact, (2) a sufficient causal connection between the injury and
the conduct complained of, and (3) a likel[ihood] that the injury will be
redressed by a favorable decision.” 4
Liberally construed, 5 Summers’ brief on appeal (1) challenges the
district court’s consolidation of his case with seven other plaintiffs, and (2)
reasserts his arguments on standing. As to Summers’ assertion that the
pretrial consolidation of his case violated his due process rights, we note that
he did not raise this objection before the district court. Instead, in response
to Defendants’ motion to consolidate, plaintiffs, including Summers, stated
_____________________
2
Cornerstone Christian Sch. v. Univ. Interscholastic League, 563 F.3d 127, 133 (5th
Cir. 2009).
3
Crane v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 244, 251 (5th Cir. 2015).
4
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
5
Defendants assert that because Summers did not identify any error in the district
court’s judgment, he has abandoned his appeal. However, as recognized by Defendants,
Summers’ brief on appeal does include arguments from his district court brief in opposition
to Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Accordingly, in light of Summers’
pro se status and the need to construe his filings liberally, we find that Summers has not
abandoned his appeal. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (noting
that “[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally construed” (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted)).
3
Case: 22-30763 Document: 00516804571 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/29/2023
No. 22-30763
that they did not oppose consolidation for purposes of “briefing legal issues
and discovery.” Accordingly, Summers’ consolidation argument is waived. 6
Additionally, the district court correctly concluded that Summers
lacks standing to pursue his claims against Defendants for damages,
injunctive, and declaratory relief. “At the pleading stage, allegations of
injury are liberally construed,” but allegations of injury that are “merely
conjectural or hypothetical do not suffice to confer standing.” 7 Although
Summers asserts that he has “stated a claim for monetary relief,” he does
not challenge the district court’s conclusion that he failed to allege a prior
injury that is fairly traceable to the conduct of the Defendants. Specifically,
Summers does not allege that he was previously eligible for community-based
treatment but was denied the opportunity to participate because of
Defendants’ failure to develop and implement a community-based program.
Instead, Summers appears to argue that he was injured by his unlawful
detention at ELMHS. However, Defendants lack the power to release
Summers absent a court order. Accordingly, to the extent Summers has
alleged a prior injury, such injury is not “fairly traceable” to Defendants’
challenged actions. 8
_____________________
6
See Keelan v. Majesco Software, Inc., 407 F.3d 332, 339-40 (5th Cir. 2005) (“If a
party wishes to preserve an argument on appeal, the party must press and not merely
intimate the argument during the proceedings before the district court. An argument must
be raised to such a degree that the district court has an opportunity to rule on it.” (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted)).
7
Little v. KPMG LLP, 575 F.3d 533, 540 (5th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).
8
See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 506 (1992) (emphasizing that a
plaintiff’s injury must be fairly traceable to the conduct of the defendant and not the result
of “the independent action of some third party not before the court” (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted)); Little, 575 F.3d at 540 (“A claim of injury generally is too
conjectural or hypothetical to confer standing when the injury’s existence depends on the
decisions of third parties not before the court.”).
4
Case: 22-30763 Document: 00516804571 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/29/2023
No. 22-30763
Summers’ appeal brief also lacks any argument challenging the district
court’s dismissal of his injunctive and declaratory relief claims. In seeking
injunctive relief, a plaintiff’s injury must be more than speculative, it must be
“certainly impending.” 9 As explained by the district court, because
Summers does not allege that he is currently (or will be imminently) qualified
for community-based placement, any future injury from Defendants’ alleged
lack of a community-based treatment program is hypothetical and
speculative. Thus, Summers has not alleged an injury-in-fact sufficient to
confer standing to pursue his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing is
AFFIRMED.
_____________________
9
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013).
5