The Honorable Richard K. Eaton, of the United States Court of * International Trade, sitting by designation.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Secretary ** of the Treasury Timothy F. Geithner is automatically substituted for former Secretary of the Treasury Henry M. Paulson, Jr., as a defendant in this case.

We direct the Clerk of the Court to amend the official caption as *** noted. 08-4810-cv(L),09-1229-cv(Con) Schulz v. United States Federal Reserve System



## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER

RULI NGS BY SU MMA RY ORD ER DO NOT HAVE PRE CED ENT IAL EF FEC T . C ITA TIO N T O ASU MMA RY ORD ER FIL ED ON OR AFT ER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PE RMI TTE D AND IS GOV ERN ED BY F EDE RAL RULE OF A PPE LLA TE P ROC EDU RE 32.1 AN D T HIS CO URT ’ S L OCA L RULE 32.1.1. W HEN C ITI NG A SUMMAR Y ORD ER IN A DOC UME NT FIL ED WIT H T HIS CO URT , A PART Y MUS T C ITE EI THE R T HE F EDE RAL A PPE NDI X O R AN ELE CTR ONI C D ATABAS E ( WIT H T HE NOT ATI ON “ SUMMAR Y O RDE R ”). APA RTY CI TIN G ASU MMA RY ORD ER MUS T S ERV E ACO PY OF IT ON ANY PA RTY NO T R EPR ESE NTE D B Y C OUN SEL . 

## 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

## 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

## 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 

## 4 New York, on the 23 day of March, two thousand and ten. rd 

## 5 6 PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, 

## 7 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 

## 8 Circuit Judges , 

## 9 RICHARD K. EATON, 

## 10 Judge . * 

## 11 12 13 14 ROBERT L. SCHULZ, 

## 15 16 Plaintiff-Appellant , 

## 17 18 -v.- 08-4810-cv(L) 

## 19 09-1229-cv(CON) 

## 20 21 UNITED STATES FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, BEN S. BERNANKE, 

## 22 CHAIRMAN OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, UNITED 

## 23 STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, ** 

## 24 SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

## 25 UNITED STATES, *** 

## 26 27 Defendants-Appellees. 

## 28

## 1 FOR APPELLANT : ROBERT L. SCHULZ, pro se , Queensbury, NY. 

## 2 3 FOR APPELLEES: PAULA RYAN COHEN, Assistant United States 

## 4 Attorney, for Andrew T. Baxter, Acting 

## 5 United States Attorney for the Northern 

## 6 District of New York, Syracuse, NY. 

## 7 8 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

## 9 Northern District of New York (Sharpe, J. ). 

## 10 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 

## 12 AND DECREED that the judgment of said district court be 

## 13 AFFIRMED . 

## 14 Appellant appeals from a judgment of the United States 

## 15 District Court for the Northern District of New York 

## 16 (Sharpe, J. ), which denied injunctive relief and dismissed 

## 17 his complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

## 18 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 

## 19 presented for review. 

## 20 We review a district court's grant of a motion to 

## 21 dismiss for lack of standing de novo . Fulton v. Goord , 591 

## 22 F.3d 37, 41 (2d Cir. 2009). With the minor exception of 

## 23 some First Amendment claims not at issue here, a person’s 

## 24 status as an American citizen or taxpayer is insufficient to 

## 25 confer on him or her standing to bring a lawsuit seeking to 

## 26 hold a government action or a statute unconstitutional in 

## 27 the absence of an articulable injury-in-fact that is 

## 28 distinct from the injury suffered by all such citizens or 

## 29 taxpayers. See, e.g. , Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found.,

## 3 

## 1 Inc. , 551 U.S. 587, 593 (2007) (“[T]he payment of taxes is 

## 2 generally not enough to establish standing to challenge an 

## 3 action taken by the Federal Government.”); Schlesinger v. 

## 4 Reservists Comm. to Stop the War , 418 U.S. 208, 226-27 

## 5 (1974) (finding a person’s interest as a citizen “too 

## 6 abstract to constitute a ‘case or controversy’ appropriate 

## 7 for judicial resolution”). The district court was correct 

## 8 that Appellant does not have standing, and thus federal 

## 9 courts have no jurisdiction over his claims. See 

## 10 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno , 547 U.S. 332, 344-45 (2006). 

## 11 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district 

## 12 court is hereby AFFIRMED . 

## 13 14 FOR THE COURT: 

## 15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 

## 16 17