Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-24-05167/USCOURTS-caDC-24-05167-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 24-5167 September Term, 2024

1:24-cv-00207-UNA

Filed On: October 2, 2024

Jordan Powell,

Appellant

v.

United States Small Business Administration,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Millett, Pillard, and Pan, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to

expedite, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed April 5, 2024,

and May 8, 2024, be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that it lacked

subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P 12(h)(3) (“If the

[district] court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court

must dismiss the action.”); Davis v. U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 716 F.3d 660, 662 (D.C.

Cir. 2013) (Rule 12(h)(3) dismissals for lack of jurisdiction are reviewed de novo). 

Appellant’s complaint alleged that appellee unlawfully denied an application by

Pricecheck, Inc. for a loan agreement. Although appellant argues that he asserted

claims to redress his own injuries and not those of Pricecheck, he failed to sufficiently

establish the requisite elements of standing. See, e.g., Air Excursions LLC v. Yellen, 66

F.4th 272, 277 (D.C. Cir. 2023). Appellant did not sufficiently allege in his complaint or

through his other pleadings that he suffered actual injuries that were fairly traceable to

appellee’s actions, or that the relief his complaint sought would redress those injuries. 

See id.; see also Gray v. Poole, 275 F.3d 1113, 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (court examines

pleadings other than the complaint “to understand the nature and basis” of a pro se

litigant’s claims). It is

USCA Case #24-5167 Document #2077866 Filed: 10/02/2024 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 24-5167 September Term, 2024

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to expedite be dismissed as moot.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

Page 2

USCA Case #24-5167 Document #2077866 Filed: 10/02/2024 Page 2 of 2