Case Information
*3 Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed March 21, 2025) _________ OPINION [*] _________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Mary Basile Logan, proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s dismissal of her civil action for lack of standing. The Appellees have moved to summarily affirm. For the reasons that follow, we will grant the motion.
In January 2024, Logan filed a civil action against numerous federal and state officials, as well as non-governmental entities, alleging violations of various federal criminal statutes and the Take Care and Treason Clauses of the United States Constitution, Article II, § 3.1, and Article III, § 3. Her amended complaint, which spans over 900 pages inclusive of exhibits, recites “theories and ‘facts’ regarding major events in modern U.S. history, including the Covid-19 Pandemic, the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, and alleged foreign influence in U.S. politics dating from the mid-20th Century.” D.Ct. ECF No. 123 at 3 (citing D.Ct. ECF Nos. 45, 46, 55). Among other relief, Logan sought $8 billion in damages, “that Donald J. Trump be placed on the November, 2023 [sic] ballot and that Joseph R. Biden be removed as Executive of these *4 United States,” that “voting be returned to one day,” and “that such voting be in person by paper ballot which is to be hand counted.” D.Ct. ECF No. 45 at 124.
The served Defendants all moved to dismiss the amended complaint on multiple grounds, including failure to state a claim, lack of jurisdiction, and lack of standing. The District Court granted the motions, concluding that “all claims against all Defendants must be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s lack of standing.” D.Ct. ECF No. 123 at 14. In addressing standing and dismissing Logan’s claims with prejudice, the District Court noted, inter alia, that Logan had “not pled Defendants’ involvement with sufficient particularity or clarity to show injury-in-fact,” or alleged “that the challenged activity … harmed her in a personal and individual way relative to other state residents.” Id. at 13- 14. (citations omitted).
Logan appeals, and the Appellees have moved for summary affirmance. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction with respect to standing. See Goode v. City of Phila., 539 F.3d 311, 316 (3d Cir. 2008). We may summarily affirm a district court’s judgment if the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate, among other things, an injury-in-fact, which must be “concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 158 (2014). In applying the standing rules, a court’s “primary project is to separate those *5 with a true stake in the controversy from those asserting ‘the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance.’” Freedom From Religion Found. Inc. v. New Kensington Arnold Sch. Dist., 832 F.3d 469, 476 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 483 (1982)). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the elements of standing. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992).
Despite multiple filings and an opportunity to amend, Logan failed to identify any “specific and concrete injury-in-fact beyond self-serving allegations” and “conclusory statements that Defendants are liable for a multitude of sins and problems.” D.Ct. ECF No. 123 at 13. We agree with the District Court that Logan’s generalized grievances “with respect to alleged changes to the U.S. voting system, the economy writ large, and the structure of the U.S. government lack Article III standing.” Id.; see also Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 140, 145-46 (2011) (concluding that “generalized grievances about the conduct of government,” and a complaint that merely “disagrees with” a state’s law is insufficient to establish injury-in-fact). We also discern no error in the District Court’s denial of Logan’s motions for preliminary injunctions.
Because this appeal fails to present a substantial question, we grant the Appellees’ motion and will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court. [1]
NOTES
[*] This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
[1] Appellant’s brief on appeal, see 3d Cir. ECF No. 21, was considered by the Court.