Urias et al v. Obama et al

Filing 24

ORDER Re: Order to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 1/22/2015.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

RICHARD N. URIAS,
an individual

Case No. 14cv2598 BTM (BLM)
ORDER RE: ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff,

v.
BARAK H. OBAMA, PRESIDENT
OF THE U.S., JOHN BOEHNER,
SPEAKER OF HOUSE, HARRY
REID, LEADER OF SENATE,

Defendants.

17
18

On December 12, 2014 the Court issued an Order to Show Cause

19

(“OSC”) why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter

20

jurisdiction on the ground that the Complaint fails to establish Article III

21

standing. Plaintiff, Richard N. Urias, responded to the OSC on December 23,

22

2014 (Dkt. No. 12) and Defendants replied on January 2, 2015 (Dkt. Nos. 13,

23

14). Plaintiff filed a second set of replies on January 6 and 7, 2015 (Dkt.

24

Nos. 17, 19) without obtaining the Court’s leave.

25

Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that

26

Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing standing under Lujan v.

27

Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), because the Plaintiff has not

28

suffered a concrete injury in-fact. Plaintiff’s complaint and subsequent filings
1

14cv2598 BTM (BLM)

1

do not plead a particularized injury. Instead, Plaintiff makes generalized

2

grievances against the executive and legislative branches of the United

3

States government for various actions and inactions over the last few years.

4

Plaintiff, however, is a private individual, and cannot invoke the judicial power

5

to determine the validity of executive or legislative action unless he “show[s]

6

that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury

7

as the result of that action and it is not sufficient that he has merely a general

8

interest common to all members of the public.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 575

9

(quoting Ex parte Lévitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937)). Plaintiff’s one allegation

10

that can potentially to be construed as a direct injury is his denial of a

11

congressional hearing by Defendants. Nonetheless, this alleged injury also

12

fails to confer standing because Plaintiff has “no constitutional right as [a]

13

member[] of the public to a government audience for [his] policy views.”

14

Minnesota State Bd. for Cmty. Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 286 (1984).

15

Therefore, Plaintiff’s has not met his burden of establishing subject

16

matter jurisdiction in response to the Court’s OSC and this action is

17

DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and

18

close the case.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

DATED: January 22, 2015

22
23

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge
United States District Court

24
25
26
27
28
2

14cv2598 BTM (BLM)