UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 09-1249 (RJL) NEW YORK PROVINCE OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS, et aI., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on defendants' motions to dismiss. For the
reasons discussed below, the motions will be granted and this action will be dismissed. 1. BACKGROUND Plaintiff's complaint is far from the short and plain statement called for in the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. It does not simply state the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, a claim showing that plaintiff's entitlement to relief, and a demand for judgment for the reliefsought. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rather, it is a verbose, disorganized, and confused collection ofconclusory statements in the guise ofa verified complaint with a petition for mandamus. Plaintiffappears to assert that elected officials in the State ofNew York and New York City, as well as federal government agencies and officials, are acting in association with or under the direction ofthe Roman Catholic Church, the Society ofJesus, 1 and the Sovereign Military
Founded by St. Ignatius ofLoyola, the Society ofJesus is a religious order in the (continued
...) 1Order ofMalta. 2 Because the members ofthese organizations have sworn an oath to the Pope, plaintiffalleges that they cannot simultaneouslyuphold the United States Constitution. Further, plaintiffappears to allege that the named defendants essentially are acting as agents ofa foreign government, presumablythe Vatican, in violation ofthe Logan Act, see 18 U.S.c. § 953. 3 These circumstances allegedly cause plaintiffand the citizens ofNew York unspecified "collective spiritual and individual temporal injuries," CompI. at 1 (introductoryparagraph), and denies them
a republican form ofgovernment. Id. Plaintiffdemands a declaratoryjudgment and injunctive reliefgenerally to enjoin the Society ofJesus and the Sovereign Military Order ofMalta from

l(
...continued) Catholic Church and is organized world-wide in 85 administrative units called provinces, the order is ledbya Superior General in Rome. Inthe United States, there are 10 provinces. These make up what is known as the American Assistancy, headquartered at the Jesuit Conference in Washington, DC. See http://www.jesuit.org (follow "FAQs"hyperlink); http://nysj.org (follow "Who We Are" hyperlink, then follow "The Society ofJesus" hyperlink).
2 The Order ofMalta officiallyis called the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John ofJerusalem ofRhodes and ofMalta, and common abbreviations are the Sovereign Military Order ofMalta, the Sovereign Order ofMalta, and the Order ofMalta. Its members are commonlyknown as the Knights ofMalta. See http://www.orderofinalta.org (follow "English" hyperlink, then follow "Names ofthe Order" hyperlink) 3 In relevant part, the Logan Act provides: Anycitizen ofthe United States, whereverhe maybe, who, without authority ofthe United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures orconduct ofany foreign government orofany officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes orcontroversies with the United States, orto defeat the measures oftheUnited States, shallbe fined underthistitleorimprisonednotmorethanthreeyears, orboth. 18 U.S.C. § 953. 2

### conducting unspecified activities until such time as an appointed special master can assess the damages caused bytheir failure to comply with federal and New York State law. II. DISCUSSION A. Dismissal Under Rule J2(b)(J)for Lackof Standing 

### "Three inter-relatedjudicial doctrines

- standing, mootness, and ripeness, ensure that federal courts assertjurisdiction only over 'Cases' and 'Controversies.'" Worth v. Jackson, 451 

### F.3d 854, 855 (D.C. Cir. 2006).4 A core element ofArticle Ill's case-or-controversyrequirement is that a plaintiffhave standing to sue. See Lujan v. Defenders ofWildlife, 

### 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). To satisfythis burden, "[a] plaintiffmust allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed bythe requested relief." Allen
v. Wright, 

### 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). Thus, a partyhas standing ifhis claims "spring from an 'injury in fact'

- an invasion ofa legallyprotected interest that is 'concrete and particularized,' 'actual or imminent' and 'fairlytraceable' to the challenged act ofthe defendant, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision in the federal court." Navegar. Inc. v. United States, 

### 103 F.3d 994,998 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders ofWildlife, 

### 504 U.S. at 560-61). "[T]hroughout the litigation, the plaintiff'musthave suffered, orbe threatened with, an actual injurytraceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorablejudicial decision.'" Spencer v. Kemna, 

### 523 U.S. 1,7 (1998) (quotingLewis v. ContinentalBank Corp., 

### 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990». If, at any time, the Court determines that it lacks subject matterjurisdiction, the action must be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h).

4 

### Thejudicial doctrines ofmootness and ripeness are not relevant to this case. 3Insofar as plaintiffbrings a claim under the Logan Act, the Court concludes that he lacks standing to do so. Only the United States Department ofState is aggrieved by a violation ofthe Logan Act, seeITT World Comm 'ens, Inc. v. Fed. Comm 'ens Comm 'n, 699 F.2d 1219, 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1983), rev'd on othergrounds, 466 U.S. 463 (1984), and plaintiffcannot demonstrate
an injury suffered due to defendants' Logan Act violation that affects him "in a personal and individual way." Lujan v. Defenders ofWildlife, 504 U.S. at 560 n.l. Nor does plaintiffhave standing to bring a claim that defendants' actions deprive him ofa republican form ofgovernment. The Supreme Court has "consistentlyheld that a plaintiffraising only a generally available grievance about government
- claiming onlyharm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application ofthe Constitution and laws, and seeking reliefthat no
more directly and tangiblybenefits him than it does the public at large

- does not state an Article III case or controversy." Lujan v. Defenders ofWildlife, 504 U.S. at 573-74. Where, as here, "[p]laintiffs stake is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that ofmillions of other voters[,]
... his harm is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters." Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509, 519 (E.D. Pa. 2008), aff'd, 586 F.3d 234 (3d Cir. 2009); seeHooker v. Sasser, 893 F. Supp. 764, 767 (M.D. Tenn. 1995) ("The Court finds that the plaintiffs' allegations ofdiluted voting power [and] denial ofundivided loyalty
... do not identify any 'concrete and particularized' injurywhich they have suffered or will suffer because ofthe defendants' conduct."). The Court concludes that plaintiffcannot establish an injury in fact, that he is without standing to bring his claims, and that this Court lacksjurisdiction to hear this matter. See Cohen
v. Obama, No. 08-2150,2008 WL 5191864 (D.D.C. Dec. 11,2008) (dismissing for lack of
4standing, among others, claims that the Secretary ofState wrongly issued then-Senator Barack Obama a passport, that the Department ofHomeland Security failed to arrest him for illegally entering the country, resulting inplaintiffs disenfranchisement), ajJ'd, 332 Fed. Appx. 640 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d at 519 (dismissing Natural Born Citizen Clause claim because plaintiff, described as a life-long member ofthe Democratic Party, lacked standing); Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1146 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (denying preliminary injunction for petitioner, "amere candidate hoping to become a California elector pledged to an obscure third-party candidate whose presidential prospects are theoretical at best," whose alleged harm "is not only speculative but also merely derivative ofthe prospects ofhis favored obscure candidate"); Hooker v. Sasser, 893 F. Supp. at 767 (dismissing for lack of standing the plaintiffs claim that other candidates' acceptance ofcampaign contributions from
non-Tennessee citizens prevented "his qualifications as a candidate for the office ofUnited States Senator from beingjudged solely and exclusivelybyTennessee citizens"); see also Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975) ("[W]hen the asserted harm is a 'generalized grievance' shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class ofcitizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.").

B. Plaintiff Is Not Entitled to Mandamus Relief "[T]he writ ofmandamus is an extraordinaryremedy, to be reserved for extraordinary situations." Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). Mandamus reliefis proper only if"(1) the plaintiffhas a clear right to relief; (2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) there is no other adequate remedy available to plaintiff." Council of and for the Blindof Delaware County Valley v. Regan, 709 F.2d 1521, 

### 51533 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (en bane). "[T]hose those invoking the court's mandamusjurisdiction must have a "clear and indisputable" right to relief; and even ifthe plaintiffovercomes all these hurdles, whether mandamus reliefshould issue is discretionary." In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). "In order for there to be a 'duty owed to the plaintiff within the meaning of[28 U.S.c.] § 1361, there must be a 'mandatoryorministerial obligation [because if] the alleged duty is discretionary or directory, the duty is not 'owed.'" Stamper v. United States, No.1 :08 CV 2593, 2008 WL 4838073, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2008). Plaintiffappears to request the issuance ofa writ ofmandamus to enforce the Logan Act,
a provision in the federal criminal code. Inthe Attorney General the United States Constitution vests the power to conduct criminal litigation on the federal government's behalf. 28 U.S.c. § 516; see United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 694 (1974). "[T]he question ofwhether and when prosecution is to be instituted is within the discretion ofthe Attorney General[,]" and [m]andamus will not lie to control the exercise ofthis discretion." Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 234-35 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (per curiam), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 906 (1966); see Stamper
v. United States, 2008 WL 4838073, at *3 ("Mandamus cannot be used to compel the Attorney General or the United States Attorney to conduct investigations orprosecute alleged civil rights violations."). Plaintiffdoes not demonstrate that the named defendants owe him a duty to act, and, therefore, he is not entitled to mandamus relief.

6III. CONCLUSION Forthe reasons stated above, defendants' motions to dismiss will be granted, and this civil action will be dismissed for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: United States District Judge

7