PRINCE v. KOBACH et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 11/16/2020. (zsb)

Case 1:20-cv-03264-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/16/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DARRELL PRINCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
KRIS KOBACH, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 20-3264

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and
his pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
“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), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1167 (2009). “One element of the case-or-controversy
requirement is that plaintiffs must establish that they have standing to sue.” Comm. on Judiciary
of U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, 968 F.3d 755, 762 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted). A party has standing for purposes of Article III if he has “(1)
suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant,
and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id. at 763 (quoting Lujan
v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)).
To the extent the Court identifies factual allegations in this lengthy and disorganized
complaint, plaintiff appears to raise claims pertaining to the presidential election of 2016 and
alleged irregularities associated with it. It is unclear what harm plaintiff himself has sustained

Case 1:20-cv-03264-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/16/20 Page 2 of 2

because of the election, and insofar as he raises general grievances about the government and its
elected officials, he fails to demonstrate standing to sue. “[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, and seeking relief that no more directly and
tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or
controversy.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74; see Olumide v. U.S. Attorney Gen., No. 20-5135, 2020
WL 6600952, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 19, 2020) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of “claim that it
is unlawful for a member of Congress to change political parties, because he has identified no
particularized injury to himself resulting from such a practice”); Lance v. Cruz, No. 16-CV-1224,
2016 WL 1383493, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2016) (rejecting argument that particular presidential
candidate’s “presence on the ballot will somehow damage [plaintiff’s] rights as a voter . . .
constitute[s] a sufficiently particularized injury to establish standing under Article III”).
Because plaintiff fails to demonstrate standing, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over his claims. Therefore, the complaint must be dismissed. An Order consistent with this
Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: November 16, 2020

/s/
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
United States District Judge