Darlene B. Lawson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. John J. Callahan, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,defendant-appellee, 111 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 1997)

The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA) was enacted by Congress in response to growing national concern regarding the expense and delay encountered by most parties engaged in litigation.¹  The Act provided for the creation of local Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plans to effectuate the goals of the Act and also for oversight by judicial advisory groups designed to streamline what was to be a national effort. What the Act did not do was create a cause of action allowing parties before the court to assert the court's non-compliance with its own plan or with the Act itself.

In the instant case, the plaintiff does not have standing to challenge the district court's reporting practices under the CJRA. The requirements for standing were articulated by the Supreme Court aptly in Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State.²  In that case, the Court stated that Article III of the United States Constitution gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain cases or controversies.³ Proof of a "case or controversy" requires a litigant to show that: (1) "he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant" [injury in fact]; (2) "that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action" [causation]; and (3) that the injury "is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision" [redressability].⁴  The plaintiff here has fallen short on all counts. Her complaint is that the district court failed to report her case as a motion pending for over six months. She has not alleged, however, any particular injury suffered by her as a result of the failure to report.⁵  Necessarily, having shown no injury, neither can the plaintiff show causation. Finally, she cannot show that a favorable decision by the court would redress any alleged injury. As the plaintiff had no standing to assert a claim under the CJRA, the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the merits of the motion.

To the extent that the plaintiff relies on the Declaratory Judgment Act, her motion must similarly fail.⁶  Section 2201 states that "in a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction ... any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought".⁷  The meaning of "actual controversy" for the purposes of this section is identical to the meaning of "case or controversy" for the purposes of Article III, as elaborated above.⁸  As such, for the reasons given, the plaintiff has not satisfied the "actual controversy" requirement of § 2201. Moreover, it is well settled that this section does not confer subject matter jurisdiction on a federal court where none otherwise exists.⁹  Consequently, the plaintiff's appeal of the denial of her motion for declaratory judgment is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Further, as stated above, the district court's denial of benefits is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.