Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02497/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02497-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 29:651 Occupational Safety/Health

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILIP EDWARD FEENEY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv2497-LAB (WVG)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Philip Feeney filed his complaint, contending that the Affordable Care Act is

unconstitutional. He did not pay the $400 filing fee, see 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), but instead filed 

a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

The IFP motion demonstrates that Feeney has substantial assets and income, and

is able to pay the required fee. The IFP motion is therefore DENIED, and the complaint is

DISMISSED for failure to pay the fee. See § 1914(a); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047,

1051–52 (9 Cir. 2007). th

The Court has reviewed the complaint, and it fails to allege facts showing Feeney has

standing to bring his claim. His argument is that the ACA was enacted in violation of the

Constitution, but he does not identify any injury to himself that is traceable to this alleged

unconstitutional enactment and that is likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling. See Lujan

v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 at 560–61 (1992) (identifying elements of standing). 

- 1 - 13cv2497

Case 3:13-cv-02497-LAB-WVG Document 3 Filed 10/21/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Standing is jurisdictional, and the Court is required to raise this issue even if the parties do

not. See B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[F]ederal

courts are required sua sponte to examine jurisdictional issues such as standing.”) 

It is clear Feeney disagrees with the ACA, and thinks the Constitution was violated. 

But merely disagreeing, however vehemently, with somethingthe government is doing or has

done does not amount to an injury, even if the source of the disagreement is an allegedly

unconstitutional act. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of

Church & State, 454 U.S. 464, 485–86 (1982) (“[T]he psychological consequence

presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees . . . is not an injury

sufficient to confer standing under Art. III, even though the disagreement is phrased in

constitutional terms.”) Unless a party with Article III standing brings a claim, the Court is

prohibited from passing judgment on the constitutionality of federal statutes. See Arizona

Christian School Tuition Org. v. Winn, 131 S.Ct. 1436, 1449 (2011) (emphasizing that federal

courts must not confer on themselves “the power to invalidate laws at the behest of anyone

who disagrees with them,” and that courts must therefore insist on Article III standing).

If Feeney wishes to proceed with his claim, he must pay the required filing fee within

21 calendar days from the date this order is entered. At the same time, he must file an

amended complaint alleging facts showing that he has standing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)

(requiring a “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction”); Ashcroft

v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (holding that legal claims must be supported by factual

allegations, not merely by conclusions).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 18, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 13cv2497

Case 3:13-cv-02497-LAB-WVG Document 3 Filed 10/21/13 Page 2 of 2