Daniel Daogaru v. U.S. Attorney General
683 F. App'x 824
11th Cir.2017Background
- Daniel Daogaru, a Michigan felon convicted for bad-check offenses, sued federal officials in Georgia seeking a declaration that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him and an injunction barring federal prosecution for possessing a firearm in his home.
- Under Michigan law Daogaru was barred from possessing firearms for three years after sentence; his firearm rights were later "restored by operation of law" but he remained ineligible for a Michigan concealed-carry license.
- Georgia law independently criminalizes firearm possession by anyone convicted of a felony in any state unless the person produces a pardon or equivalent document from the convicting jurisdiction expressly authorizing firearm possession.
- Federal defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)), arguing Georgia law would bar Daogaru from possession regardless of federal enforcement, so his injury is not traceable to federal defendants.
- The district court dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding Daogaru failed to show causation and redressability because a favorable federal ruling would not prevent Georgia prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge § 922(g)(1) | Daogaru: federal ban infringes his Second Amendment right; he seeks relief against federal enforcement | Defendants: Georgia law independently forbids his possession; any injury stems from the State, not federal action | No standing — failure of causation and redressability; dismissal affirmed |
| Timeliness of AG's motion to dismiss | Daogaru: the motion was untimely | Defendants: motion timely or excuseable | Not reached — court declined to reach timeliness because lack of standing is dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- McCullum v. Orlando Reg'l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 768 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for dismissal for lack of standing reviewed de novo)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (establishes causation and redressability requirements for standing)
- Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999) (federal courts must inquire into subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)