MANUEL v. UNITED STATES

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 04/13/2022. (zmh)

Case 1:22-cv-00586-UNA Document 3 Filed 04/18/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DAVID R. MANUEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 22-586 (UNA)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a Petition, ECF No. 1, and an application to proceed
in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the case for want
of jurisdiction.
Federal courts “possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute[.]”
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “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). “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) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“To satisfy the constitutional minimum for

standing, an alleged injury must either have ‘a close relationship to a harm that has traditionally
been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in English or American courts,’ or a statute must
make the injury ‘legally cognizable.’ ” Farrell v. Blinken, 4 F.4th 124, 135 (D.C. Cir. 2021)
(quoting Twin Rivers Paper Co. v. SEC, 934 F.3d 607, 616 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (other citation omitted)

1

Case 1:22-cv-00586-UNA Document 3 Filed 04/18/22 Page 2 of 2

(emphasis in original))). “The defect of standing is a defect in subject matter jurisdiction.” Haase
v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
Plaintiff is a resident of Long Beach, California, who has sued the United States. He simply
“would like to be exempt under the Civil Liberties Act from any type of requirements” imposed at
all levels of government—from federal to local municipalities--in response to COVID-19 and the
Omicron variant. Pet. at 1. Plaintiff wants “the Order of Exemption” to “take effect” immediately;
to “remain in effect until” he “file[s] another civil action to cease the order”; and to be enforced
“against any retaliatory action[.]” Id. Although Plaintiff mentions the Constitution and federal
law, see id., he has alleged neither the deprivation of a protected right nor a resulting injury.
Consequently, this case will be dismissed by separate order.
_________/s/___________
TIMOTHY J. KELLY
United States District Judge

Date: April 13, 2022

2