Prince v. U.S. Government, 090517 FED3, 17-1482

Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge Panel:Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:DARRELL PRINCE, Appellant v. US GOVERNMENT; OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; SUPREME COURT UNITED STATES; U.S. CONGRESS
Case Date:September 05, 2017
Docket Nº:17-1482
 
FREE EXCERPT

DARRELL PRINCE, Appellant

v.

US GOVERNMENT; OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; SUPREME COURT UNITED STATES; U.S. CONGRESS

No. 17-1482

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

September 5, 2017

         NOT PRECEDENTIAL

          Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) September 1, 2017

         On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-16-cv-06702) District Judge: Honorable Juan R. Sánchez

          Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

          OPINION [*]

          PER CURIAM

         Pro se appellant Darrell Prince appeals the District Court's sua sponte dismissal of his complaint for lack of standing. For the reasons discussed below, we will affirm the District Court's judgment.

         The complaint is a mix of vague allegations concerning the recent election of President Donald Trump. It principally alleges a flawed apportionment of Electoral College voters and federal representatives, in violation of Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it additionally contends that President Trump's financial holdings give him "unprecedented opportunities" to violate the Emoluments Clause. Doc. No. 3 at 1-3. Filed in December 2016 (after the 2016 presidential election, but before Inauguration Day), the complaint sought "an immediate delay in the electoral college proceedings, until these matters can be worked out."1 Doc. No. 3-1 at 1.

         This Court exercises plenary review over district court orders dismissing a complaint for lack of standing. N. Jersey Brain & Spine Ctr. v. Aetna, Inc., 801 F.3d 369, 371 (3d Cir. 2015). To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) an injury-in-fact; (2) a sufficient causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. See Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S.Ct. 2334, 2341 (2014); Finkelman v. Nat'l Football League, 810 F.3d 187, 193 (3d Cir. 2016). Of these three required elements for standing, "the injury-in-fact element is often determinative." Toll Bros., Inc. v. Twp. of Readington, 555 F.3d 131, 138 (3d Cir. 2009) (citations ...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP