SCHWANER v. FORT EUSTIS COMMAND, No. 1:2009cv00733 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 04/15/09. (mmh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Jack A. Schwaner, Plaintiff, v. Fort Eustis Command, U.S. Army Transportation Center, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APR 2 2 2009 NANCY MAYER WHlTIfNGTON. CLERK Civil Action No. U.S. DISTRICT COURT 09 !r733 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the court on consideration of plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A federal court is limited by the Constitution to considering matters that present a case or controversy. U.S. Const. art. III, ยง 2. Standing is one of the justiciability doctrines that has developed to give meaning to Article Ill's case or controversy requirement. Nat 'I Treas. Employees Union v. United States, 101 F.3d 1423,1427 (D.C. Cir. 1996). A question of Article III standing is a question of subject matter jurisdiction. See Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982) ("Subject matter jurisdiction, then, is an Art. III as well as a statutory requirement[.]") Article III standing requires, among other things, that a plaintiff have suffered an injury in fact, which is an invasion of a legally protected interest that is both concrete and particularized and actual or imminent rather than conjectural or hypothetical. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). "The complainant \~ 3 must allege an injury to himselfthat is distinct and palpable." Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted; emphasis added). Plaintiff s complaint alleges that a particular Army Regulation "discriminates against AIT students." CompI. at 1. Plaintiff does not identify himself as an AIT student or otherwise reveal how he is harmed by the discrimination against the AIT students. Thus, considering only the injury-in-fact requirement of standing, it is clear that plaintiffs complaint does not establish that he has standing to bring this suit, and thus does not demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction to hear this matter. Therefore, this Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Dated: A-,..-.-:-\ r rt ~ UnWed States District Judge -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
