TAAL v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, No. 1:2019cv03079 - Document 20 (D.D.C. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying the final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/29/20.(psu1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
TAAL v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BABOUCAR TAAL, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 19-3079 (RC) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, appearing pro se, sues the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), which dismissed his administrative complaint alleging that a bank in New Hampshire had violated the Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. §§ 30101-30126. See Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1 (alleging that the bank “engaged in illegal campaign contributions to a series of candidates for both state and federal offices, in a patronage system as far back as the 1990s and in relevant time and pertinent campaign(s) that of the then outgoing chairman of St Mary’s, for Governor and United States Senate.”); Compl. Attach. (FEC Decision). Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 13. Plaintiff has neither complied with the order to respond to the instant motion by the extended deadline of October 16, 2020, see ECF No. 18, nor requested additional time to respond. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion will be granted. 1 Dockets.Justia.com “Before proceeding to the merits of a case, the court must confirm that it has Article III jurisdiction.” Lovitky v. Trump, 949 F.3d 753, 758 (D.C. Cir. 2020). By his silence, plaintiff has conceded defendant’s valid argument that he lacks standing to sue. See Mem. at 15-21; Order, ECF No. 15 (noting that defendant’s unopposed arguments may be treated as conceded). Because the “defect of standing is a defect in subject matter jurisdiction,” Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987), the Court has “no appropriate occasion” to assess the merits of plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6), Lovitky, 949 F.3d at 763. Therefore, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. ________/s/____________ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge Date: October 29, 2020 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.
