Rеymundo Z. MENDOZA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Hilda SOLIS, United States Secretary of Labor, et al., Defendants, v. Western Range Association, et al., Intervenor-Defendants.
Civil Action No. 11-1790 (BAH)
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
Feb. 21, 2013.
924 F. Supp. 2d 307
BERYL A. HOWELL, District Judge.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, defendant‘s motion for summary judgment will be granted as to its claimed exemptions and the segregability of the processed records, and will be denied in all other respects without prejudice. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendant‘s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. # 16] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part without prejudice; it is further
ORDERED that by March 22, 2013, defendant shall (1) process the remaining responsive records and release any non-exempt records to plaintiff, and (2) file a properly supported summary judgment motion that addresses those records, the referred records, and the actual search for responsive records; it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff‘s mоtion for counsel [Dkt. # 22], motion for an in camera inspection [Dkt. # 23], and motion for a writ of mandamus [Dkt. # 28] are DENIED.
Edward John Tuddenham, New York, NY, Jennifer J. Lee, Colorado Legal Services, Denver, CO, Gregory A. Beck, Julie A. Murray, Michael T. Kirkpatrick, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC, P. Alex McBean, Utah Legal Services, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiffs.
Geoffrey Forney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
Wendel Vincent Hall, C.J. Lake LLC, Carl W. Hampe, Baker & McKenzie, Monte B. Lake, Siff & Lake, LLP, Washington, DC, for Intervenor Defendants.
BERYL A. HOWELL, District Judge.
The plaintiffs, who are four former open-range agricultural workers, bring this action against the defendants United States Secretary of Labor and United States Department of Labor pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA“),
I. BACKGROUND
A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA“), as amended by the Immigra
In order to ensure that the importation of H-2A workers does not “adversely affect the wages ... of workers in the United States similarly employed,”
With respect to working conditions, Department of Labor regulations require that H-2A employers provide a minimum level of benefits and working conditions, including housing, workers’ compensation insurance, meals, supplies, and transportation. See
The Department of Labor has, for many years, permitted exceptions to these generally applicable procedures “to recognize unique circumstances and characteristics for some agricultural employer/worker situations,” such as sheepherding and occupations involving the open-range production of livestock. See 52 Fed.Reg. 20,496, 20,497 (June 1, 1987) (codified as amended at
Pursuant to the authority delegated in the 1987 rulemaking, the Department of Labor published Field Memorandum 74-89 in May 1989, which set forth a number of “special procedures governing the labor certification process for temporary alien sheepherders.”2 Fed. Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (“Defs.’ Summ. J. Mem.“) Ex. A at 1, ECF No. 28-2. The special procedures contained in Field Memorandum 74-89, inter alia, (1) permitted employers to describe the anticipated hours of open-range herding positions as
“on call for up to 24 hours per day, 7 days per week,” and exempted employers from recording and reporting hours offered and worked, id. at 7; (2) permitted employers to offer open-range herders, at minimum, “the prevailing wage rate for the occupation in the State as determined by the [State Employment Service Agency, or ‘SESA‘] prevailing wage survey ... or a special monthly [AEWR] established by the National Office,” id. at 9; and (3) established standards for mobile housing used by H-2A open-range herders, id. at 20-24. The mobile housing standards issued in the 1989 special procedures, unlike the generally applicable procedures, did not specifically require that open-range mobile housing have a running cold-water tap, electricity, or modern toilet facilities. Compare
The Department of Labor‘s H-2A regulations were most recently amended pursuant to a final rule that was promulgated through notice-and-comment procedures on February 12, 2010. See 2010 H-2A Rule, 75 Fed.Reg. 6884. The 2010 H-2A regulations reaffirmed the authority of the Department of Labor (in particular, the Office of Foreign Labor Certification (“OFLC“)) to “establish, continue, revise, or revoke special procedures” for processing H-2A applications for sheepherders
The special procedures contained in the 2011 Open Range TEGL do not differ in any material respect from their prior 2007 iteration. They substantially continue the special procedures regarding hours, wages, and mobile housing standards discussed above. Compare Open Range TEGL, 76 Fed.Reg. at 47,244-47, with Defs.’ Summ. J. Mem. Ex. C at 3-6. The special рroce
B. Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiffs in this action are “four workers with experience in sheepherding or in the open range production of livestock.” Pls.’ Mem. in Opp‘n to Def.-Intervenor‘s Mot. to Dismiss (“Pls.’ Opp‘n“) at 3, ECF No. 26. The plaintiffs all originally came to the United States as guest workers under the H-2A visa program, though none of them currently participates in the H-2A program. See id.; see also Decl. of Reymundo Zacarias Mendoza (“Mendoza Decl.“) ¶¶ 4-5, ECF No. 26-1; Decl. of Francisco Javier Castro (“Castro Decl.“) ¶¶ 3-4, ECF No. 26-2; Decl. of Alfredo Conovilca Matamoros (“Matamoros Decl.“) ¶¶ 3-4, 8, ECF No. 26-3; Decl. of Sergio Velásquez Catalán (“Catalán Decl.“) ¶¶ 3-4, ECF No. 26-4. All four plaintiffs aver that they reside lawfully in the United States and are permitted to work in the United States. See Mendoza Decl. ¶ 8; Castro Decl. ¶ 6; Matamoros Decl. ¶ 16; Catalán Decl. ¶ 7.6 The plaintiffs also claim that they are able, willing, quali
The plaintiffs filed their complaint in the instant action on October 7, 2011, stating one cause of action that challenges the validity of the 2011 TEGLs under the APA. See Compl. ¶¶ 20-21. As a result of the procedural deficiencies alleged, the plaintiffs seek (1) a declaratory judgment that the defendants violated the APA by failing to subject the 2011 TEGLs to notice-and-comment procedures; and (2) an order vacating the special procedures contained in the 2011 TEGLs and “enjoining the defendants from using any special procedures for H-2A certification of sheepherder, goatherder, and open range production of livestock jobs unless and until such procedures have been adopted through notice-and-comment rulemaking.” Id. at 7.
On December 14, 2011, the Western Range Association and the Mountain Plains Agricultural Service (collectively the “intervenor-defendants“) filеd a motion to intervene as defendants in this action on the grounds that “together [they] represent almost all of the employers affected by the action that Plaintiffs are challenging, their interests are directly at stake, neither party can be counted upon to protect those interests, and the disposition of this action in their absence would likely impair or impede their interests.” Joint Mot. to Intervene at 1, ECF No. 15. The intervenor-defendants “are associations whose membership consists of agricultural employers involved in the open range production of sheep and livestock which hire foreign herders under the H-2A program.” Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Joint Mot. to Intervene at 1, ECF No. 15-3. Approximately two weeks after the motion to intervene was filed, on December 27, 2011, the parties stipulated to the requested intervention. See Joint Stipulation on Intervention & Proposed Scheduling Ordеr at 2, ECF No. 16. On January 4, 2012, the Court granted the motion to intervene. See Minute Order dated Jan. 4, 2012. Currently pending before the Court are the intervenor-defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and three cross-motions for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs, the government defendants, and the intervenor-defendants, respectively. For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs do not have standing, and therefore the Court grants the intervenor-defendants’ motion to dismiss.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
When faced with a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), a court has “an affirmative obligation to consider whether the constitutional and statutory authority exist” for it to hear the case. James Madison Ltd. v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085, 1092 (D.C.Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). For this reason, “the [p]laintiff‘s factual allegations in the complaint ... will bear closer scrutiny in resolving a 12(b)(1) motion than in resolving a 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim.” Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F.Supp.2d 9, 13-14 (D.D.C.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). When the purported lack of jurisdiction stems from a lack of standing, however, the court “must assume that [the plaintiff] states a valid legal claim.” Info. Handling Servs., Inc. v. Def. Automated Printing Servs., 338 F.3d 1024, 1029 (D.C.Cir.2003). The proponent of jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that it exists, Khadr v. United States, 529 F.3d 1112, 1115 (D.C.Cir.2008), and while “the district court may consider materials outside the pleadings,” it must “still accept all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true.” Jerome Stevens Pharm., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249, 1253 (D.C.Cir.2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
Article III of the United States Constitution limits the federal judicial power to the resolution of “Cases” and “Controversies.”
As the Supreme Court has explained, “the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact,” i.e., “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Second, there must be “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of,” i.e., the injury alleged must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant. Id. Finally, it must be likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decisiоn. Id. at 561. Moreover, when a plaintiff seeks prospective declaratory or injunctive relief, allegations of past harms are insufficient. See, e.g., Dearth v. Holder, 641 F.3d 499, 501 (D.C.Cir.2011). Rather, when declaratory or injunctive relief is sought, a plaintiff “must show he is suffering an ongoing injury or faces an immediate threat of [future] injury.” Id. (citing City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983)).
Additionally, a plaintiff may assert the violation of a procedural right as the basis for standing, but only “so long as the procedures in question are designed to protect some concrete interest of his that is the ultimate basis of his standing.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573 n. 8. “[D]eprivation of a procedural right without some concrete interest that is affected by the deprivation—a procedural right in vacuo—is insufficient to create Article III standing.” Summers, 555 U.S. at 496. “[I]n order to show that the interest asserted is more than a mere general interest in the alleged procedural violation common to all members of the public,” the plaintiff “must show that the government act performed withоut the procedure in question will cause a distinct risk to a particularized interest of the plaintiff.” Fla. Audubon Soc‘y v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658, 664 (D.C.Cir.1996).
A. The Plaintiffs Have Not Established an Injury-in-Fact.
In arguing that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the instant action, the
The intervenor-defendants further argue that, even assuming that the plaintiffs rely upon a legally protected interest, the plaintiffs have not established a concrete or particularized injury to that interest. See Intervenors’ Mem. at 11-14. Specifically, the intervenor-defendants contend that “although the plaintiffs have past experience with the field subject to the contested agency action, they have not identified a single employer, or even region, where they intend to seek work where wages or conditions have been adversely affected by the contested procedures.” Id. at 13. They also argue that “there is not one factual allegation in the complaint connecting the alleged procedural defect (the Special Procedures) to the alleged substantive injury (the plaintiffs’ failure to work in the Industry).” Id. at 14. The plaintiffs respond that their injury is concrete and particularized because of “their experience working as herders and their desire to return to herding on the open range.” Pls.’ Opp‘n at 10. The plaintiffs claim in their brief that, although they have “actively sought work,” in open-range herding, they “have not encountered any employer willing to offer employment on terms superior to those required by the challenged TEGLs.” Id. at 10-11.
The plaintiffs have articulated what would, in theory, be a sufficient injury in fact, but they have failed to establish that they have been personally injured in the way they describe. See, e.g., Allen, 468 U.S. at 751 (holding that standing requires a “personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant‘s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief” (emphasis added)). It is well-established that “economic actors ‘suffer an injury in fact when agencies lift regulatory restrictions on their competitors or otherwise allow increased сompetition’ against them.” Sherley v. Sebelius, 610 F.3d 69, 72 (D.C.Cir.2010) (quoting La. Energy & Power Auth. v. FERC, 141 F.3d 364, 367 (D.C.Cir.1998)); accord Ass‘n of Data Processing Serv. Orgs. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 152 (1970) (holding that competitors suffered injury-in-fact where increased competition “might entail some future loss of profits“); see also Shays v. FEC, 414 F.3d 76, 86 (D.C.Cir.2005) (acknowledging that “accounting for additional rivals constitutes injury in fact“); United Transp. Union v. Interstate Commerce Comm‘n, 891 F.2d 908, 912 n. 7 (D.C.Cir.1989) (observing that the allegation that “paying subminimum wages to homeworkers will injure factory employees” was “not just plausible” but was “an application of basic economic logic“). Competitor standing, however, requires that a competitor is “likely to suffer financial injury” as a result of the challenged action. See Mobile Relay Assocs. v. FCC, 457 F.3d 1, 13 (D.C.Cir.2006). The D.C. Circuit has made clear that “[c]laiming that regulatory action creates a ‘skewed playing field,’ ... is not enough” because that claim is merely “a ‘bare assertion’ of
In light of this authority, the plaintiffs’ allegations of injury-in-fact in the instant action fall short for two reasons. First and most importantly, the plaintiffs have not established that they are in fact competing in the relevant marketplace under the challenged regulatory scheme, i.e., the labor market for open-range herders, as regulated by the 2011 TEGLs. Although the plaintiffs’ brief states that the plaintiffs have “actively sought” work as open-range herders, Pls.’ Opp‘n at 11, this naked assertion is contradicted by the allegations in the Complaint as well as the plaintiffs’ sworn declarations. The Complaint merely states that the plaintiffs “would actively seek such jobs,” if such jobs paid more and had better working conditions. See Compl. ¶¶ 5-8 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the plaintiffs’ sworn declarations establish that, not only did all of the plaintiffs leave the open-range herding industry well before the 2011 TEGLs were promulgated, but also none of the plaintiffs have actively sought work in the open-range herding industry since the promulgation of the 2011 TEGLs. The plaintiff who comes closest to alleging an injury-in-fact is Mr. Mendoza, who avers that he was fired from his last open-range herding job in September 2010. Mendoza Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. Although Mendoza says that he “h[as] sought work as a herder” since that time, he has not done so “since leaving Henefer, Utah” in May 2011. Id. ¶¶ 6, 11, 13. The 2011 TEGLs did not even become effective, however, until October 1, 2011—several months after Mr. Mendoza stopped actively seeking work in the open-range herding industry. See Open Range TEGL, 76 Fed.Reg. at 47,244; Herding TEGL, 76 Fed.Reg. at 47,257. Plaintiff Castro left his last job as a sheepherder in March 2010, and his only reference to potentially reentering the open-range herding labor market was when he “f[ou]nd out about another job as a sheepherder in Washington” but “did not pursue [it]” because he “found out that the conditions were the same as the ranch [he] left.” Castro Decl. ¶¶ 4, 8. Plaintiff Matamoros avers that he left his last open-range herding job in August 2009, and although he states vaguely that he “want[s] to work as a sheepherder again” and “h[as] considered working as a sheepherder again,” he has not actually endeavored to reenter the job market for sheepherders because he “h[as] never heard anybody talk about a herding job that has acceptable pay and working conditions.” Matamoros Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7-8. Mr. Matamoros states that he “talk[s] to friends and acquaintances regularly about job opportunities” and “h[as] not found an employer willing to pay [higher] wages or provide [better] working conditions,” but he does not state that he has actively sought employment in any such positions since the 2011 TEGLs were promulgated. See id. ¶¶ 8-9. This is insufficient to establish competitor standing, which requires that a plaintiff be a “direct and current competitor,” not a hypothetical or conditional competitor. See KERM, 353 F.3d at 60. Finally, plaintiff Catalán states that he has not worked as an open-range herder since leaving his last position in June 2005, and he says nothing about whether he has tried to compete for open-herding jobs since October 2011. See Catalán Decl. ¶ 4. Mr. Catalán merely states
In short, the plaintiffs’ sworn affidavits confirm that none of them has been a competitor in the open-range herding industry since May 2011. Thus, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that they have suffered “a personal injury fairly traceablе to the defendant‘s allegedly unlawful conduct.” Allen, 468 U.S. at 751. At most, the plaintiffs state that they would compete for open range herding positions if the positions offered better wages and working conditions. See Mendoza Decl. ¶ 11; Castro Decl. ¶ 9; Matamoros Decl. ¶ 9; Catalán Decl. ¶ 9. Yet, these sorts of “‘some day’ intentions—without any description of concrete plans, or indeed even any specification of when the some day will be—do not support a finding of the ‘actual or imminent’ injury that [the Supreme Court‘s] cases require.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564; see also Snake River Farmers’ Ass‘n, Inc. v. Department of Labor, 9 F.3d 792, 796-98 (9th Cir.1993) (holding that speculative possibility of future employment in agricultural positions was insufficient to establish standing to challenge wage rates determinations under the INA).7
The second reason why the plaintiffs have failed to establish an injury-in-fact, under their theory of competitor standing, is that the plaintiffs have neither alleged nor shown that they аre “likely to suffer financial injury” as a result of the 2011 TEGLs. See Mobile Relay, 457 F.3d at 13. Although this issue is also relevant to the traceability of the plaintiffs’ purported injury, the presence of a financial injury that is actual or imminent is a prerequisite to establishing an injury-in-fact under a theory of competitor standing. See id.; see also KERM, 353 F.3d at 60-61. But cf. Shays, 414 F.3d at 86-90 (analogizing business competitors with electoral competitors and concluding that political candidates establish injury-in-fact by having to campaign against adversaries who obtained illegal financing). The plaintiffs have not alleged that their actual wages or working conditions have suffered or will likely suffer in any way as a result of the challenged guidance. In fact, the plaintiffs have not even established that the challenged guidance has adversely affected (or is likely to adversely affect) the wages and working conditions of American workers who, unlike the plaintiffs, are employed or seeking employment as open-range herders. All that the plaintiffs offer in this regard is anecdotal beliefs and speculation. See, e.g., Mendoza Decl. ¶ 12 (“I believe that the presence [of] H-2A workers has depressed wages and working conditions.“); Catalán Decl. ¶ 10 (“I have met sheepherders here in Washington and they have the same bad conditions that I had when I worked as an H-2A herder.“).
What is more, while the plaintiffs claim that employers categorically do not hire open-range herders for more than $750
As a result of the plaintiffs’ failure to establish that (1) they are or will likely be competitors in the labor market for open-range herding positions regulated by the challenged guidance; or (2) they are or will likely suffer a financial injury as a result of having to compete for open-herding positions at depressed wages and working conditions, the plaintiffs have failed to establish their standing to sue. An Article III injury-in-fact must be, inter alia, “concrete and particularized rather than abstract or generalized.” Grocery Mfrs. Ass‘n v. EPA, 693 F.3d 169, 175 (D.C.Cir.2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Hein v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 620 (2007) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (noting “the familiar proposition that a plaintiff lacks a concrete and particularized injury when his only complaint is the generalized grievance that the law is being violated“). Yet, the only allegations that separate the plaintiffs in the instant action from the general citizenry is their pre-2011 open-range herding experience and their vague intentions to return to open-range herding someday, if the wages or working conditions improve. Neither allegation establishes “a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant [the plaintiffs‘] invocation of federal-court jurisdiction.” Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (internal quotation mark omitted).
B. The Plaintiffs Are Not Arguably Within the “Zone of Interests” Protected or Regulated by the Immigration and Nationality Act.
In addition to the plaintiffs’ lack of an injury-in-fact, the plaintiffs also do not satisfy prudential standing requirements. “[A] person suing under the APA must satisfy not only Article III‘s standing requirements, but an additional test: The interest he asserts must be ‘arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute’ that he says was violated.” Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 567 U.S. 209, 132 S.Ct. 2199, 2210, 183 L.Ed.2d 211 (2012) (quoting Camp, 397 U.S. at 153). This “zone of interests” requirement is “a gloss on the meaning of [5 U.S.C.] § 702,” Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass‘n, 479 U.S. 388, 395 (1987), which limits the universe of persons permitted to sue under the APA to those “adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action,”
In order to delineate the zone of interests, a court must “look to the Act itself and to its legislative history.” Int‘l Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen v. Meese, 761 F.2d 798, 804 (D.C.Cir.1985). In this case, the INA itself speaks relatively clearly about the “interests to be protected or regulated.” See Patchak, 132 S.Ct. at 2210. The statute states that certification procedures are required for H-2A visas to ensure that (1) “there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, and qualified, and who will be available at the time and place needed, to perform the labor or services involved in the petition,” and (2) “the employment of the alien in such labor or services will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States.” See
The parties, in fact, do not disagree about the fundamental purposes of the H-2A certification procedures. Rather, the parties diverge over whether the plaintiffs fall within the INA‘s zone of interests. The intervenor-defendants argue that the plaintiffs do not fall within the INA‘s zone of interests both because they are not “willing,” within the meaning of the statute, and also because their wages and working conditions are not being adversely affected by the importation of foreign labor. See Intervenors’ Mem. at 14-19. The plaintiffs contend, however, that “[t]he INA explicitly protects U.S. workers, like plaintiffs, who would be wоrking as herders if the TEGLs had not depressed the wages and working conditions available to them.” Pls.’ Opp‘n at 12-13. The plaintiffs reason that (1) they “are U.S. workers,” (2) who “allege that the TEGLs allow the wages and working conditions in their preferred profession to be adversely af
The record supports the conclusion that all of the plaintiffs are “United States workers” within the meaning of the INA, since each plaintiff is, according to his sworn affidavit, either “an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence” or “an immigrant otherwise authorized ... to be employed in the U.S.” See
Likewise, the zone of interests of the INA‘s H-2A certification procedures is inherently limited by whether the complaining party is “similarly employed” to those he says are adversely affecting his wages and working conditions. This is a simple matter of labor economics. The intent of the INA‘s H-2A certification procedures is to ensure that an influx of foreign labor does not deflate the wages and working conditions of American workers. Yet, the differentiation of human capital in the labor market means that only those “similarly employed” will have the economic incentive to contest the importation of a given type of worker. See, e.g., Clarke, 479 U.S. at 399 (“The essential inquiry [of the zone of interests test] is whether Congress ‘intended for a particular class of plaintiffs to be relied upon to challenge agency disregard of the law.‘” (quoting Block, 467 U.S. at 347)). By way of example, an individual who makes a living fixing automobiles cannot be relied upon to challenge the wages provided to foreigners who are hired to be street-sweepers because there is no reason to believe that the wages paid or the working conditions provided to the street-sweepers have any effect (let alone an adverse one), on the mechanic‘s wages or working conditions—the wages and working conditions of the two professions are apples and oranges.
This conclusion is consistent with prior decisions in this Circuit. The D.C. Circuit has held that employers challenging a denial of an H-2A certification are within the INA‘s zone of interests. See, e.g., Pesikoff v. Sec‘y of Labor, 501 F.2d 757, 760 (D.C.Cir.1974) (holding that the interest “of American employers in obtaining quali
IV. CONCLUSION
As the foregoing discussion makes clear, the plaintiffs have not established a cognizable injury-in-fact, which is necessary to confer standing to sue under Article III. Furthermore, the plaintiffs fall outside the INA‘s “zone of interests,” and therefore they also lack prudential standing to sue. Hence, this action does not satisfy Article III‘s case-or-controversy requirement, the Court is without subject-matter jurisdiction to hear it, and it must be dismissed.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
BERYL A. HOWELL
United States District Judge
Jose Luis MALDONADO, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 11-1473 (BAH).
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
Feb. 21, 2013.