Marvin v. United States
Civil Action No. 2021-1493
| D.D.C. | Jun 8, 2021Background:
- Petitioner Mark Marvin, proceeding pro se, filed a habeas petition seeking release and dismissal of the indictment against Christopher Warnagiris (related to Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol events).
- Marvin alleged Warnagiris was a peaceful visitor whose entry was blocked and that the prosecution would a priori deny him access to Washington, D.C.
- Marvin sought the court to release Warnagiris from indictment, custody, and bail.
- The Court reviewed Article III standing and the habeas "in custody" requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
- The Court granted Marvin's application to proceed in forma pauperis but concluded Marvin lacked standing and was not "in custody."
- The petition was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; a separate order was entered.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Marvin seeks relief for Warnagiris and claims prosecution denies access to D.C. | Marvin has no personal injury; not prosecuted or threatened; any future injury is speculative | No standing; claim dismissed for lack of Article III jurisdiction |
| Habeas "in custody" requirement | Seeks writ to release Warnagiris though Marvin did not allege he is restrained | Habeas relief requires petitioner to be "in custody" under law | Marvin is not "in custody"; habeas unavailable |
| In forma pauperis (IFP) motion | Marvin requested IFP status | No opposition noted | IFP granted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Navy Chaplaincy, 534 F.3d 756 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Article III case-or-controversy principle)
- Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, 968 F.3d 755 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (standing requirements)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (injury-in-fact standard for standing)
- Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) (private citizen lacks judicial interest in prosecution of another)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (speculative future injury insufficient for standing)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (vague desire to return is insufficient for imminent injury)
- Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963) (parole can constitute custody for habeas purposes)
- Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 (1973) (nonconfinement restraints can establish custody for habeas)
- Ahuruonye v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 312 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2018) (citizen lacks standing to contest prosecution of another)
- Williams v. Lew, 77 F. Supp. 3d 129 (D.D.C. 2015) (applying Clapper to reject speculative standing)