Peterson v. US Attorney General

Filing 12

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Dismiss. Clerk to enter judgment and close the case. So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.(dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Harold Peterson
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-413-JD
Opinion No. 2011 DNH 207

United States Attorney General
O R D E R
Harold Peterson, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint
seeking a writ of mandamus that would require the United States
Attorney General to remove certain federal officers from office.
The Attorney General moves to dismiss the action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

Peterson objects to the motion.
Federal courts are authorized by Article III of the
Constitution “to resolve not questions and issues but ‘Cases’ and
‘Controversies.’”

Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 131

S. Ct. 1436, 1441 (2011).

“To state a case or controversy under

Article III, a plaintiff must establish standing.”

Id.

Standing

must be based on “more than just the ‘generalized interest of all
citizens in constitutional governance,’” id. at 1441-42 (quoting
Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208,
217 (1974)), and instead requires that the plaintiff suffered a
“particular injury,” Ariz. Christian, 131 S. Ct. at 1442.

A

“particular injury” is an injury that “‘must affect the plaintiff
in a personal and individual way.’”

Id. (quoting Lujan v.

Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 n.1 (1992)).
In this case, Peterson asserts that Article II, Section 2,
of the Constitution requires certain presidential appointments to
be made with the advice and consent of the Senate.

He further

asserts that President Obama has made appointments of officers,
who are called Czars, without the Senate’s advice and consent.
Peterson argues that the officers who are referred to as Czars
are principal officers whose appointments are subject to Article
II, Section 2.

Peterson states that the “Czars” have the ability

“to make policy decisions affecting each and every citizen of the
United States.”

Compl. ¶ 13.

Peterson provides no allegations that he has suffered any
injury as a result of the appointment of the “Czars.”

As noted,

he alleges only that the “Czars” have the ability to affect every
citizen.

Therefore, Peterson did not allege that he suffered a

particular injury due to the appointment of the “Czars.”
In support of his objection, Peterson argues first that
standing is a court-created rule which this court has discretion
to ignore.

He is mistaken.

He also contends that as an American

citizen he is seeking adjudication of a “breach of the
Constitution by the Executive Branch.”
2

Peterson further states

that he “is not seeking any redress for any specialized harm to
him as a result of this breach” and that “all citizens are harmed
to the same degree.”

As such, Peterson establishes that he has

not suffered any particular injury as a result of the
constitutional breach he asserts.
Because Peterson shows that he lacks standing to bring the
claim he alleges, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider his
suit.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to dismiss
(document no. 7) is granted.

The case is dismissed.

The clerk

of court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
December 14, 2011
cc:

Harold Peterson, pro se
Gretchen Leah Witt, Esquire

3