ITIOWE v. THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT et al

Filing 5

OPINION. Signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano on 6/25/2013. (gxh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, et al., :
:
Defendants.
:
____________________________________:
CHRISTIANA ITIOWE,

Civil Action No. 13-02102 (JAP)
OPINION

PISANO, District Judge.
This is an action brought by pro se Plaintiff Christiana Itiowe (“Plaintiff”) against
Defendants United States Government, United States House of Representatives, Department of
Homeland Security, Trenton Psychiatrist Hospital, and State of New Jersey Mental Health
Division (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated her brother,
Franklin Itiowe’s, civil rights by denying him permanent resident status and mistreating him while
he was a patient at Defendant Trenton Psychiatrist Hospital (the “Hospital”). At this time, the
Court must review the Complaint to determine whether it has jurisdiction over this case. For the
reasons set forth herein, the Court finds that this action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
I.

Background
The following factual allegations are taken from the Complaint, and are accepted as true

for purposes of this Court’s review only.1 Plaintiff states that she is bringing this lawsuit as [her
brother’s] petitioner” and that she has his consent to do so. She includes a letter from her brother,
1

In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the Court must be mindful to construe it
liberally in favor of the plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197 (2007);
United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992). Here, the Court construes Plaintiff’s
Complaint liberally, as it is required to do.

Mr. Itiowe, which purports to provide his consent for Plaintiff to bring this lawsuit on his behalf.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated her brother’s civil rights by mistreating him while he was
a patient at the Hospital and denying him permanent resident status. In particular, she alleges that
Mr. Itiowe contracted Hepatitis A while he was committed to the care of the Hospital and that, as a
result of his illness, he was unable to attend an immigration interview that had been scheduled.
Since he could not attend his interview, he was denied permanent resident status. Due to his
illness and his time at the Hospital, Mr. Itiowe has suffered stress, which exacerbates his
underlying mental illness. Therefore, Plaintiff brings this lawsuit and seeks money damages and
requests that her brother be granted permanent resident status and issued a green card.
II.

Discussion
“Standing is a threshold jurisdictional requirement, derived from the 'case or controversy'

language of Article III of the Constitution.” Pub. Interest Research Grp. of N.J., Inc. v.
Magnesium Elektron, Inc., 123 F.3d 111, 117 (3d Cir. 1997). “If plaintiffs do not possess Article
III standing . . . the District Court . . . lack[s] subject matter jurisdiction to address the merits of
plaintiffs’ case.” Storino v. Borough of Point Pleasant Beach, 322 F.3d 293, 296 (3d Cir. 2003)
(citation omitted). Even if the parties fail to raise the issue of standing, “[t]he federal courts are
under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction, and standing is perhaps the
most important of [the jurisdictional] doctrines.” United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742, 115 S.
Ct. 2431 (1995) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Employers Ins. of Wausau v.
Crown Cork & Seal Co., 905 F.2d 42, 45 (3d Cir. 1990) (“A federal court is bound to consider its
own jurisdiction preliminary to consideration of the merits”) (citations omitted). “A court can
take no measures to rectify a want of jurisdiction because the lack of jurisdiction itself precludes
asserting judicial power.” Williams v. Moore, et al., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162807, at *6 (D.N.J.
2012) (dismissing complaint sua sponte where district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction).

As explained more fully below, this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiff’s claims.
The doctrine of standing requires, at the outset of the litigation, a plaintiff to demonstrate
that “(1) it has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or
imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action
of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be
redressed by a favorable decision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S.
167, 180-81, 120 S. Ct. 693 (2000) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61,
112 S. Ct. 2130 (1992)).
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action. Plaintiff admittedly
brings this proceeding on behalf of her brother and all of the allegations relate to Mr. Itiowe. She
alleges that Mr. Itiowe contracted Hepatitis A while in the care of the Trenton Psychiatrist Hospital
and that as a result of the illness, he was unable to attend his immigration interview and therefore
was denied permanent residence status. While the Court is sympathetic to Mr. Itiowe’s troubles
and makes no judgment as to the validity of any claims that he may have, Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that she has suffered an “injury in fact,” which is a prerequisite for bringing a claim
in federal court. See id. Therefore, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
claims and the matter must be dismissed. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.

/s/ Joel A. Pisano
JOEL A. PISANO, U.S.D.J.
Dated: June 25, 2013