Marshall Reedom, Jr. v. Louis Ackal, et al, No. 13-30764 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 14, 2014.
Download PDF
Case: 13-30764 Document: 00512500085 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/14/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-30764 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 14, 2014 MARSHALL REEDOM, JR., Plaintiff Appellant, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. LOUIS ACKAL; FARRELL BONIN, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:12-CV-2037 Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff Appellant Marshall Reedom appeals the district court s dismissal of his complaint without prejudice for lack of standing. We affirm. Reedom s pro se complaint alleges that Louis M. Ackal, the sheriff of Iberia Parish, the Iberia Sherriff s Department, and Farrell Bonin, an employee of the department, violated state, federal, and constitutional Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 13-30764 Document: 00512500085 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/14/2014 No. 13-30764 provisions by improperly investigating an accident involving his brother. For these violations, Reedom claims damages of $20 million. The district court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, which dismissed Reedom s complaint on the ground that he has not established that he has personally sustained an injury caused by the defendants, since his claims relate solely to alleged injuries to his brother. We review questions of standing de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. 1 Under that standard, the party bringing the suit must establish standing to prosecute the action. 2 Constitutional standing requires that the plaintiff personally suffered some actual or threatened injury that can be fairly traced to the challenged action and is redressable by the courts. 3 In addition to these minimum requirements, certain court-created requirements for standing exist, ones arising from judicial prudence and not from the constitution. 4 One such requirement is that plaintiffs assert their own legal rights and not those of others. 5 On appeal Reedom discusses neither why he has standing nor the reasons the district court erred in concluding that he lacked standing. He instead provides a discussion of the Due Process Clause and the text of a Supreme Court case that addressed the pleading requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6 1 Nat l Rifle Ass n of Am., Inc. v. McCraw, 719 F.3d 338, 343 (5th Cir. 2013). 2 Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 11 (2004). 3 Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., 494 F.3d 494, 496 (5th Cir. 2007) (en banc). 4 Serv. Emps. Int l Union, Local 5 v. City of Hous., 595 F.3d 588, 597-98 (5th Cir. 2010). 5 Id. at 598. Reedom s brief consists almost exclusively of an essay on due process by Peter INFO. INST., Strauss, Peter Strauss, Due Process, LEGAL http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process (last visited Jan. 13, 2013), and the text of Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957). 6 2 Case: 13-30764 Document: 00512500085 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/14/2014 No. 13-30764 We agree with the district court that Reedom has failed to establish that he suffered some personal injury as a result of the defendants actions. Reedom s complaint alleges only that the actions of the defendants caused his brother harm. He does not allege that he personally suffered any injury. Read liberally, 7 Reedom s complaint may also be understood to allege that all African-Americans in Iberia Parish have been injured by the defendants conduct. This does not establish standing, however, since Reedom does not claim that he is a resident of Iberia, or even Louisiana. 8 The record indicates rather that Reedom resides in Fort Worth, Texas. Because Reedom has thus failed to establish that he has suffered any personal injury, we AFFIRM. 7 See Johnson v. Atkins, 999 F.2d 99, 100 (5th Cir. 1993). 8 See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 755 (1984). 3
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.
