HUNTER v. UNKNOWN NAMED SENATORS et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 08/19/2021. (znmg)
Case 1:21-cv-02055-UNA Document 3 Filed 08/19/21 Page 1 of 3
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MICHAEL HUNTER,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN NAMED SENATORS, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
AUG. 19, 2021
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Columbia
Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-02055 (UNA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on review of petitioner’s application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2, and pro se petition for mandamus, ECF No. 1. The
court will grant the IFP application and dismiss the petition without prejudice for want of subject
matter jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action “at any
time” if it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction), and pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8(a).
Petitioner, a resident of Owntonna, Minnesota, sues 140 United States senators, – two of
whom are named and the rest unidentified – a United States Representative, and President Donald
Trump. He seeks a “writ of mandamus directing that the Respondents p[er]form duties owed
including but not limited to the cease of spread of misinformation and other communications that
likely will produce lawless actions[].” He takes serious issue with a variety of alleged actions
taken by all respondents, both separately, and in concert.
First, under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts “may only adjudicate actual,
ongoing controversies,” Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988), of which “the core component
of standing is an essential and unchanging part[.]” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560
Case 1:21-cv-02055-UNA Document 3 Filed 08/19/21 Page 2 of 3
(1992). In order to satisfy the standing requirement, petitioner must establish at a minimum (1)
that he has “suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a)
concrete and particularized; and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical[;]” (2) that
“a causal connection” exists “between the injury and the conduct complained of . . . and [is] not
the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court[;]” and (3) that the
injury will “likely” be redressed by a favorable decision. Id. at 560–61 (alterations, internal
quotation marks, and citations omitted). Importantly, where “the asserted harm is a ‘generalized
grievance’ shared in substantially equal measure by . . . a large class of citizens, that harm alone
normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975).
Here, petitioner has failed to establish standing because, taking his allegations at face value
for purposes of this action, the petition plainly raises a generalized grievance, and petitioner
provides no support for any specific injury that is concrete, imminent, or particularized to himself.
Second, Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires complaints to contain
“(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir.
2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that respondents receive fair notice of the claim being asserted
so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the
doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). When a
“complaint [] contains an untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely stated,
nor meaningfully distinguished from bold conclusions, sharp harangues and personal comments
[,]” it does not fulfill the requirements of Rule 8. Jiggetts v. D.C., 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C.
2017), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. D.C., No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 1, 2017).
Case 1:21-cv-02055-UNA Document 3 Filed 08/19/21 Page 3 of 3
The instant petition is rambling, wide-ranging, and vague, and therefore, fails to comply with Rule
8(a).
For these reasons, this matter is dismissed without prejudice.
accompanies this memorandum opinion.
Date: August 19, 2021
/s/______________________
EMMET G. SULLIVAN
United States District Judge
A separate order
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?