Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_19-cv-01597/USCOURTS-alnd-5_19-cv-01597-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

DEANDRE’ RUSSELL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et 

al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 5:19-cv-1597-LCB

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Plaintiffs, DeAndre’ and Constance Russell, appearing pro se, filed a 

complaint on September 27, 2019.

1 (Doc. 1). In the style of their case, the Plaintiffs 

list the United States of America and the State of Alabama as defendants. However, 

in the section of their complaint entitled “Defendant(s),” the Plaintiffs describe the 

defendants as “All members of the United States Congress (pass (sic), recent and 

present years)” that voted in the affirmative to pass the Federal Judiciary Act of 1925 

and its subsequent Amendments. (Doc. 1, p. 5). The Plaintiffs also name as 

defendants “All Members of the Alabama Legislators (sic) (pass (sic), recent and 

 1 The Plaintiffs also filed a “Motion with (sic) Leave to Amend” on October 11, 2019, (Doc. 10) 

followed a “Motion to Clarify and Summarize their Complaint With a More Definite Statement”

on October 23, 2019. (Doc. 13). As its title reflects, the latter is not a motion but a summary of 

the Plaintiffs’ argument. It does not add or remove any claims. The Court will thus treat it as a 

supplement to the original complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Accordingly, the motion 

for leave to amend (Doc. 10) is MOOT. 

FILED

 2020 Apr-09 AM 11:09

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:19-cv-01597-LCB Document 20 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 9
2

present) who are following in a Lock-Step Doctrine, of the U.S. Congresses (sic) 

Federal Judicial (sic) Act of 1925 and all its Amendments....” Id.

The Plaintiffs purport to bring their claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 

allege that the appellate court practice of issuing decisions without a written opinion, 

what the Plaintiffs refer to as “no opinion rulings,” violates various constitutional 

rights. The Plaintiffs assert that the Federal Judiciary Act, as amended, allows for 

this practice. In their complaint, the Plaintiffs state that “Congress cannot create a 

federal law that leaves full discretion to the Appellate (State and Federal) Justices, 

to decide whether a case may or may not be important enough for adjudication, based 

on no set standard of what constitutes important enough.” (Doc. 1, p. 6-7). The 

Plaintiffs similarly allege that the appellate court practice of discretionary review 

deprives them and others of those same rights. The Plaintiffs are seeking a 

declaratory judgment holding the Judiciary Act of 1925 unconstitutional and an 

injunction directing all federal and state appellate courts to issue written opinions on 

every case that comes before them. The Plaintiffs also appear to be asking this Court 

to enjoin the practice of discretionary review by all appellate courts in the nation, 

including the United States Supreme Court.

The complaint contains little in the way of background. Although not 

specifically alleged, the Plaintiffs appear to have appealed an adverse ruling from a 

lower state and/or federal court to an intermediate appeals court, which then affirmed 

Case 5:19-cv-01597-LCB Document 20 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 9
3

the ruling of the trial court without publishing a written opinion.2 One of the 

Plaintiffs also asserts that she has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United 

States Supreme Court. As best the Court can discern, the Plaintiffs have alleged that

Congress, by passing the Judiciary Act of 1925, has violated various constitutional 

rights because that Act allows intermediate appellate courts to issue “‘no opinion 

rulings’” and gives certain appellate courts the discretion to decline to hear an 

appeal. (Doc. 1, p. 6). The Plaintiffs also allege that the Alabama Legislature has 

violated the same constitutional rights by allowing the same procedures in state 

court.3

Discussion

Federal courts must determine that they have jurisdiction before hearing a

case. Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998). Article III

of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to “Cases” and

“Controversies.” Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439 (1998)(citing U.S. Const.

art. III, § 2). One component of the case or controversy requirement is standing,

which requires a plaintiff to demonstrate injury in fact, causation, and redressability. 

See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).

 2 The complaint references a bankruptcy proceeding but also references an appeal to the Alabama 

Court of Civil Appeals. Thus, it can be inferred that there were at least two separate proceedings 

from which one or both of the Plaintiffs appealed. Again, the Plaintiffs do not give any details 

about the proceedings from which they appealed. 3 The Plaintiffs do not identify a specific state law.

Case 5:19-cv-01597-LCB Document 20 Filed 04/09/20 Page 3 of 9
4

In its motion to dismiss, the Defendant asserted, among other things, that this 

case is due to be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) because, it says, the

Plaintiffs lack standing. The United States Supreme Court has held that in order to 

meet the standing requirement of Article III of the United States Constitution, a 

plaintiff must establish the following:

(1) it has suffered an “injury in fact” that is (a) concrete and 

particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or 

hypothetical;

(2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the 

defendant; and

(3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be 

redressed by a favorable decision. 

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-

81 (2000). “The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing 

these elements. Since they are not mere pleading requirements but rather an 

indispensable part of the plaintiff's case, each element must be supported in the same 

way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with 

the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the 

litigation.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561(internal citations omitted).

In reviewing the Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Court finds that they have alleged 

only a generalized injury by claiming that the practice of “no opinion rulings” and 

discretionary appellate review deprives them of various constitutional rights

Case 5:19-cv-01597-LCB Document 20 Filed 04/09/20 Page 4 of 9
5

including the right to due process. Although the Plaintiffs vaguely refer to cases 

they were actually involved in, they do not provide any detail about those

proceedings. Their grievance is not a concrete, particularized, actual, or imminent 

injury. Instead, Plaintiffs sweepingly claim that all citizens of the United States 

suffer when they receive a “no opinion” ruling from an appellate court.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have failed to allege any concrete and

particularized injuries. The Supreme Court has consistently held that “a plaintiff 

raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm 

to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, 

and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the

public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Lance v. Coffman, 

549 U.S. at 439 (1998)(citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573–574).

In order to establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must satisfy all three 

elements laid out by the Supreme Court in Lujan. Because the Plaintiffs have failed 

to allege facts supporting the first element, the Court need not consider whether the 

remaining factors are satisfied. Thus, by holding that the Plaintiffs have failed to 

allege an injury in fact, the Court is not implying that they have met the remaining 

elements of Article III standing. The Court makes no findings on those issues. 

Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) is due to be granted.

Case 5:19-cv-01597-LCB Document 20 Filed 04/09/20 Page 5 of 9
6

Although the Plaintiffs’ lack of standing is dispositive in this case, the Court 

points out that the Plaintiffs’ grievance with “no opinion rulings” appears to be based 

on their misunderstanding of that procedure. The Plaintiffs seem to be under the 

impression that, when an appellate court issues a decision without a written opinion, 

that court is not actually adjudicating the case on the merits. See e.g. (Doc. 1, p. 

9)(asserting that the Judiciary Act of 1925 gives appellate courts “the authority to 

say ‘no I/We, the justices of these high courts, have nothing to say about your case, 

even if your case has merit.’”). The Plaintiffs even assert their belief that due 

process would be satisfied if appellate courts would issue an opinion stating as 

follows: “‘no petitioner, we looked at your case and saw where the lower courts done 

(sic) nothing wrong, therefore we will not take up or further your case.’” (Doc. 1, 

p. 10-11). What the Plaintiffs do not understand is that when a case is affirmed 

without opinion, that is precisely what the appellate court is saying. Rulings issued 

by appellate courts without contemporaneous published opinions have been 

considered on the merits by those courts.

Plaintiffs’ Other Motions

The Plaintiffs also filed two motions which appear to be requesting a change of 

venue. See (Docs. 3 and 11). In their “Motion to Place Constitutional Complaint in 

Proper Court Pursuant to 28 § 1631” (Doc. 3), the Plaintiffs asked the Court to 

transfer their case to the proper jurisdiction if the Court determined that it did not 

Case 5:19-cv-01597-LCB Document 20 Filed 04/09/20 Page 6 of 9
7

have jurisdiction. Similarly, in their “Motion to Change Venue” (Doc. 11), the 

Plaintiffs, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1404, stated that it would be improper for a court in 

Alabama to hear this case because, they say, their complaint centers around alleged 

wrongs committed by courts in Alabama (both state and federal). However, the 

Plaintiffs did not identify the venue that they believe to be proper. Nevertheless, 

these motions are DENIED. Because the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the claims 

asserted in their complaint, this case would not be proper in any jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs also filed a “Motion for Adjudication by (3) Panel Judge of a 

Constitutional Complaint” (Doc. 4). Citing 28 U.S.C. § 22814

, the Plaintiffs ask that 

this case be assigned to a three-judge panel of district judges because of the 

significance of their claim. The Plaintiffs appear to be referring to 28 U.S.C. 

2284(a), which provides: “A district court of three judges shall be convened when 

otherwise required by Act of Congress, or when an action is filed challenging the 

constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts or the 

apportionment of any statewide legislative body.” This case meets none of those 

criteria. Accordingly, this motion is DENIED.

The Plaintiffs also filed a “Motion to Correct the Record of Plaintiff(s) 

Complaint” (Doc. 8), which appears to notify the Court that they properly served the 

 4 28 U.S.C. § 2281 was repealed in 1976.

Case 5:19-cv-01597-LCB Document 20 Filed 04/09/20 Page 7 of 9
8

defendants and that one of the Plaintiffs’ name was incorrect on certain filings. To 

the extent this was intended to be a motion to amend the complaint to correct a 

party’s name, the motion is GRANTED. Finally, the Plaintiffs filed a “Motion to 

Present the Good Faith of their Filed Constitutional Complaint” (Doc. 18), in which 

the Plaintiffs stated that their complaint was made in good faith and was not intended 

to cause any undue delay in their underlying proceedings. However, this motion 

does not appear to actually ask for any type of relief. To the extent it could be 

construed to ask for any type of relief, the motion is DENIED.

The Court also notes that, two weeks after they filed their original complaint, the 

Plaintiffs filed a “Motion for Preliminary Injunctive and Restraining Order Relief”

(Doc. 9). This motion sought a preliminary injunction staying one or both of the 

Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy proceedings. The other relief sought in the motion is unclear. 

Nevertheless, because the Court has determined that the Plaintiffs lack standing and

are consequently not entitled to any relief, this motion is DENIED. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) is due to 

be GRANTED and this case DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A separate order 

will be entered.

Case 5:19-cv-01597-LCB Document 20 Filed 04/09/20 Page 8 of 9
9

DONE and ORDERED April 9, 2020.

 _________________________________

 LILES C. BURKE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:19-cv-01597-LCB Document 20 Filed 04/09/20 Page 9 of 9