Hart et al v. Janicki et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying 25 MOTION for Reconsideration and 26 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) Modified on 6/4/2024 to correct spelling error. (KRA).

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. C23-832 MJP

v.
LISA JANICKI, 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

25) and Motion for Criminal Referral (Dkt. No. 26). 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. 23).) 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 3-5.) 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

None of the Plaintiffs has identified any concrete or particularized injury sufficient to
confer standing under Article III. First, Plaintiffs fail to identify a personal injury arising
out of the use of public funds incurred in the defense of the various County officials
Plaintiffs have sued in several different lawsuits. 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.
Second, Plaintiffs fail to identify sufficient allegations to support their theory that they
suffered an injury to their right to campaign or vote. (See Compl. ¶¶ 31-34; Plaintiffs’
Affidavits (Ex. 2 to the Complaint) (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 6-18) (seeking compensation for
alleged loss of voting and campaigning rights, but not identifying any inability to have
voted or campaigned).) Nowhere have Plaintiffs alleged that they were unable to vote or
run for office or that they had any intention to do so. They have therefore failed to
identify a concrete or particularized injury necessary to confer standing. And by failing to
respond to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs have failed to provide any explanation or
meet their burden to show standing.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

(Dkt. No. 23 at 3-4.)

18

Plaintiffs’ newly-identified evidence does not alter the fact that Plaintiffs continue not to

19

have standing to pursue any of the claims alleged in this matter. Plaintiffs have not identified any

20

personal injury sufficient to meet Article III’s standing requirements. The Court therefore

21

DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration and DENIES the Motion for Criminal Referral. This

22

matter shall remain closed.

23

\\

24
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