UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

In re:

COMMON LAW VEHICULAR JUDICIAL NOTICE

CONSTITUTIONAL DRIVER’S LICENSE,

_________________________________/

MICHAEL RICHEY SMITH

 

Petitioner.

_________________________________/

CASE NO. 2:14-mc-50981

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

ORDER DISMISSING MISCELLANEOUS MATTER

Before the Court is Petitioner Michael Smith’s Common Law Vehicular Judicial

Notice Constitutional Driver’s License. (Doc. No. 1). Petitioner filed this miscellaneous

matter apparently seeking a declaratory judgment that he be permitted to drive a vehicle

without a state-issued driver’s license. Petitioner asserts that the right to travel is a

basic right guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States and prohibits states

from converting such a right into a privilege. There is no named defendant in this action

and no request for relief.

Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution limits the “judicial power of the

United States” to actual “cases” and “controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. As

the Supreme Court noted, “[t]he requirements of Art. III are not satisfied merely because

a party requests a court of the United States to declare its legal rights . . . .” Valley

Forge Christian Coll. v. Am. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S.

464, 471 (1982). Rather, the party must “have ‘standing’ to challenge the action sought

to be adjudicated in the lawsuit.” Id. In order to satisfy the standing requirement, a

plaintiff must have “suffered some actual or threatened injury due to the alleged illegal

conduct of the defendant; the injury must be ‘fairly traceable’ to the challenged action;

2:14-mc-50981-MOB-RSW Doc # 2 Filed 08/05/14 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 8
and there must be a substantial likelihood that the relief requested with redress or

prevent the plaintiff’s injury.” Coal Operators & Assoc., Inc. v. Babbitt, 291 F.3d 912,

916 (6th Cir. 2002). In other words, it is the plaintiff’s burden to establish an (1) injury in

fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability. Id. 

From the face of the filing, it is clear Petitioner failed to meet his burden to

demonstrate that he has standing to bring such an action for declaratory relief. There is

no injury in fact present here, as Petitioner does not claim to have been cited or

arrested for failing to obtain a driver’s license. Instead, he seeks an order from this

Court proclaiming to the world that he is immune to traffic citations or other penalties he

potentially faces if stopped by a police officer without a valid, state-issued license. No

actual case or controversy exists for the Court to adjudicate. Moreover, even if

Petitioner had standing to bring his claim, the Supreme Court has already determined

that although citizens enjoy the right to interstate travel, there is no fundamental “right to

drive.” See Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 112-16 (1977); see also Miller v. Reed, 176

F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court advises Petitioner to obtain a valid driver’s

license so that he may avoid future fines and penalties. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s filing is hereby DISMISSED for lack of standing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: August 5, 2014 s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

United States District Judge

2

2:14-mc-50981-MOB-RSW Doc # 2 Filed 08/05/14 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to their

respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on August 5, 2014.

s/ Kay Doaks 

Case Manager

3

2:14-mc-50981-MOB-RSW Doc # 2 Filed 08/05/14 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 10