Hart et al v. McDermott et al

Filing 53

ORDER denying 48 MOTION for Reconsideration and 49 MOTION for Criminal Referral. The Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration and DENIES the Motion for Criminal Referral. This matter shall remain closed. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (KRA) (cc: Plaintiffs via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

CODY HART, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11
12
13
14

CASE NO. C23-503 MJP

v.
DONALD McDERMOTT, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND
MOTION FOR CRIMINAL
REFERRAL

Defendants.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No.

17

48) and Motion for Criminal Referral (Dkt. No. 49). Having reviewed both Motions and

18

supporting materials, the Court DENIES both Motions.

19

The Court previously issued an Order dismissing this action with prejudice and without

20

leave to amend. (Order of Dismissal (Dkt. No. 43).) In particular, the Court found that it lacked

21

subject matter jurisdiction over the action because Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue the claims

22

they alleged. (Id. at 5-7.) The Court explained:

23
24

Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual “cases” and
“controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. “One element of the case-or-controversy

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR CRIMINAL REFERRAL - 1

1

requirement is that plaintiffs must establish that they have standing to sue.” Clapper v.
Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 408 (2013) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
To establish standing “a plaintiff must show (1) [they have] 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 Envt’l. Serv. Inc., 528 U.S. 167,
180-81 (2000). “The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden
of establishing these elements.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016). “[A]t
the pleading stage, the plaintiff must clearly allege facts demonstrating each element.” Id.
(internal quotation and citation omitted). And “a plaintiff cannot establish standing by
asserting an abstract general interest common to all members of the public, no matter
how sincere or deeply committed a plaintiff is to vindicating that general interest on
behalf of the public.” Carney v. Adams, ___ U.S. ___, 208 L. Ed. 2d 305, 141 S. Ct. 493,
499 (2020) (citation and quotation omitted).

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to identify any concrete or particularized injury sufficient to
confer standing as required under Article III. First, other that Hart, none of the other
named Plaintiffs is alleged to have taken any action or suffered any injury. There are
therefore no allegations that these individuals suffered any injury that might confer
standing. Second, none of the Plaintiffs has identified any injury arising out of the alleged
failure of McDermott and Weyrich to file criminal complaints or to publicly file their
timely-obtained and timely-signed public bonds and oaths of office. Plaintiffs fail to
identify any concrete, personal injury from these alleged omissions or untimely acts or an
injury that could be redressed from the relief sought. At most, Plaintiffs have identified
an injury to a public interest that is common to all members of the public. This is not a
basis to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of standing. See Carney, 141 S. Ct. at 499.
Based on the allegations, the Court finds that Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue all of their
claims. The Court therefore DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

(Id. at 5-6.)
Plaintiffs’ newly-identified evidence does not alter the fact that Plaintiffs continue not to
have standing to pursue any of the claims alleged in this matter. Plaintiffs have not identified any
personal injury sufficient to meet Article III’s standing requirements. The Court therefore
DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration and DENIES the Motion for Criminal Referral. This
matter shall remain closed.
\\
\\

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR CRIMINAL REFERRAL - 2

1

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiffs and all counsel.

2

Dated June 4, 2024.

3

A

4

Marsha J. Pechman
United States Senior District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR CRIMINAL REFERRAL - 3