Price v. Sessions
Filing
16
OPINION AND ORDER granting 11 Motion to Dismiss by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 8/8/18. (pglov)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger
Civil Action No. 17-cv-02831-MSK
JOHN C. PRICE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFF SESSIONS, Attorney General of the United States,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
______________________________________________________________________________
THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to Mr. Sessions’ Motion to Dismiss (#
11), and Mr. Price’s response (# 12).
Mr. Price’s pro se Complaint (# 1), which the Court construes liberally, Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), is a lengthy rumination on the process of drawing
congressional districts. Mr. Price’s general complaint appears to be that his legislative district,
Colorado’s 2d Congressional District, has a history of voting overwhelmingly for the Democratic
candidate, leaving Mr. Price with “the inability to affect an election” and depriving him of a
meaningful choice of candidates to vote for. Curiously, although he clearly indicates that
congressional districts are drawn by the state, he names the U.S. Attorney General as the sole
Defendant in this action, explaining somewhat opaquely that Mr. Sessions “represents the
Department of Justice as the official ensuring enforcement of constitutional provisions.”
Somewhat later, Mr. Price states that he sues Mr. Sessions “for clarification of Article I [of the
U.S. Constitution],” presumably referring to Sections 2 and 4 of that Article.
1
Mr. Sessions moves to dismiss (# 11) Mr. Price’s claims, arguing, among other things,
that Mr. Price lacks standing to sue because he cannot show that Mr. Sessions caused the injury
of which Mr. Price complains. In response, Mr. Price concedes that “the alleged injury and
challenged actions are not traceable to [Mr. Sessions].” Instead, he explains that he is invoking
the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702, which allows the Court to review an “agency
action,” and 5 U.S.C. § 703, which permits an action to “be brought against the United States . . .
or the appropriate officer” if not other statutory review proceeding is available. Mr. Price
explains that Mr. Sessions is the “Justice Department official responsible for ensuring
enforcement if Plaintiff wins this case.”
To establish standing to bring suit, Mr. Price must, among other things, assert facts
showing that the injury he complains of is “fairly traceable to the challenged action of the
defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court.”
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Here, Mr. Price concedes that Mr.
Sessions, as a federal official, is not responsible for Colorado’s drawing of congressional
districts. Mr. Price’s belief that the Administrative Procedures Act offers him some avenue to
suit against Mr. Sessions is misplaced, as that statute allows review of agency actions undertaken
by federal agencies; it does not provide a means to review actions made by purely state agencies.
5 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1) (defining “agency” to be “each authority of the Government of the United
States”). As Mr. Price makes clear, the drawing of congressional districts is undertaken by state
authorities. Whatever claim Mr. Price might have – and the Court renders no opinion on what
that claim might look like or who it may be brought against – it does not lie against Mr. Sessions
or any other federal actor.
2
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Mr. Sessions’ Motion to Dismiss (# 11). Because it is
not possible for Mr. Price to replead his Complaint to state any cognizable challenges that may
be asserted against Mr. Sessions on these facts, the Court DISMISSES Mr. Price’s Complaint
without leave to replead. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.
Dated this 8th day of August, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
Marcia S. Krieger
Chief United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?