Landrith v. Roberts, 999 F. Supp. 2d 8

Background

Plaintiffs Landrith (disbarred attorney) and Lipari (medical-supply business owner and former client) sue Chief Justice Roberts in his official capacity as administrator of the Judicial Conference.
Plaintiffs claim First Amendment and Due Process violations by federal judges and government actors, alleging retaliation, a so-called Code of Silence, and surveillance linked to their litigation activity.
They seek prospective injunctive and declaratory relief against Judicial Conference policies and ethics processes, including posting ethics complaints publicly on the Internet.
Plaintiffs filed an original complaint; after defendant moved to dismiss, they amended it and sought leave to file a second amended complaint, sanctions, and CM/ECF password access.
The court dismissed Counts I and II for lack of standing, held Count III moot, and denied leave to amend as futile; sanctions and password requests were denied as moot.
The court’s ruling rests on standing, redressability, mootness principles, and the limited authority of the Judicial Conference over ethics and bar admission.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do Counts I and II have standing?	Landrith and Lipari allege injuries traceable to the Chief Justice as head of the Judicial Conference.	The Chief Justice cannot control third-party judges or bar admissions; causal link and redressability are lacking.	Counts I and II lack standing; dismissed.
Is Count III moot>	Abuse of process and due process claims against the Chief Justice remain live regardless of other counts.	With Counts I–II dismissed, Count III cannot affect ongoing rights and is moot.	Count III is moot and dismissed.
Is the proposed second amended complaint futile?	Would add new counts and name Holder; seeks broader relief and new theories.	Proposed amendments restate existing claims and present new theories that fail; futile.	Proposed amendments are futile; leave to amend denied.
Should Rule 11 sanctions be imposed?	Defendant engaged in misconduct and misrepresentations in pleadings.	Arguments are in good faith; no bad faith or improper purpose shown.	Rule 11 sanctions denied.
Should plaintiffs obtain CM/ECF password access?	Access needed to prosecute claims.	Action is being dismissed; password requests moot.	Requests denied as moot.

Key Cases Cited

Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (standard for treating factual allegations as true in subject-matter-jurisdiction disputes)
Schuler v. United States, 617 F.2d 605 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (standard of review for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury, causation, and redressability)
Akinseye v. District of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (jurisdictional pleading standards and standing principles)
Ins. Co. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (U.S. 1982) (analyze jurisdictional prerequisites and independent standing rules)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (court has limited jurisdiction; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction proper when outside authority)
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2007) (standing and redressability principles in environmental regulation context)
Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (standing elements and traceability considerations)
Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (patently insubstantial claims and lack of federal-question jurisdiction)
Jerome Stevens Pharm., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (judicial review of agency actions and evidentiary rule considerations)
Hohri v. United States, 782 F.2d 227 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (jurisdictional inquiry; vacated on other grounds though cited for standard)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (liberal construction of pro se filings; pleading standards)