Rivera v. United States U.S. Government The United States U.S.
1:23-cv-02035
E.D.N.YOct 10, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Jacinto Rivera, pro se, filed substantially similar complaints in EDNY (Rivera I) and SDNY (Rivera II); the SDNY matter was transferred to EDNY and assigned 23-CV-2035.
- Rivera sued numerous federal, state, and local entities and officials (including the United States, the President, SSA, CDC, DHS, Treasury, NY State and City), asserting broad policy grievances and alleged mismanagement of Social Security funds.
- He sought about $42.5 million (payable in cash or gold/silver) and requested continuation of his Social Security disability payments.
- Rivera alleged mental, financial, and programmatic injuries (including effects on his SSDI benefits), but most claims were generalized grievances about government policy.
- Rivera also failed to complete service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i); he filed motions for contempt/default that the court denied; an AUSA appeared but proper service was not shown.
- The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Article III standing) and ordered that any future filings in the district by Rivera naming these defendants must include a copy of this Memorandum & Order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Rivera: suffered concrete mental and financial injuries and SSDI harm from defendants' policies | Defendants/Court: claims are generalized grievances not particularized | Dismissed for lack of standing |
| Causation | Rivera: SSA mismanagement and government decisions caused his financial/benefit harm | Defendants/Court: injuries not fairly traceable to defendants' actions | Causation not established |
| Redressability / Relief | Rivera: seeks monetary damages and order to continue SSDI payments | Defendants/Court: requested relief is speculative and not likely to redress generalized grievances | Redressability lacking; relief unavailable |
| Service of Process | Rivera: attempted service and moved for default/contempt | Defendants: Rule 4(i) service not shown despite AUSA appearance | Service improper; but case dismissed on jurisdictional grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (sets the three-part Article III standing test)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (court must ensure it has subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013) (generalized grievances insufficient for standing)
- Nat’l Org. for Marriage, Inc. v. Walsh, 714 F.3d 682 (2d Cir. 2013) (discusses standing requirements under Lujan)