Case Name: Marshall REEDOM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis ACKAL; Farrell Bonin, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-14
Citations: 551 F. App'x 249
Docket Number: No. 13-30764
Parties: Marshall REEDOM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis ACKAL; Farrell Bonin, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 551
Pages: 249–250

Head Matter:
Marshall REEDOM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis ACKAL; Farrell Bonin, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-30764
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 14, 2014.
Marshall Reedom, Jr., Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
Craig Edmond Frosch, Esq., Lloyd Frederick Schroeder, II, USRY, Weeks & Matthews, A.P.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Marshall Reedom appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint without prejudice for lack of standing. We affirm.
Reedom's pro se complaint alleges that Louis M. Ackal, the sheriff of Iberia Parish, the Iberia Sherriff s Department, and Farrell Bonin, an employee of the department, violated state, federal, and constitutional provisions by improperly investigating an accident involving his brother. For these violations, Reedom claims damages of $20 million. The district court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, which dismissed Reedom's complaint on the ground that he "has not established that he has personally sustained an injury caused by the defendants, since his claims relate solely to alleged injuries to his brother."
We review questions of standing de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. Under that standard, "the party bringing the suit must establish standing to prosecute the action." "Constitutional standing requires that the plaintiff personally suffered some actual or threatened injury that can be fairly traced to the challenged action and is redressable by the courts." In addition to these minimum requirements, "certain court-created requirements for standing exist, ones arising from judicial prudence and not from the constitution." One such requirement is that plaintiffs "assert their own legal rights and not those of others."
On appeal Reedom discusses neither why he has standing nor the reasons the district court erred in concluding that he lacked standing. He instead provides a discussion of the Due Process Clause and the text of a Supreme Court case that addressed the pleading requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
We agree with the district court that Reedom has failed to establish that he suffered some personal injury as a result of the defendants' actions. Reedom's complaint alleges only that the actions of the defendants caused his brother harm. He does not allege that he personally suffered any injury. Read liberally, Reedom's complaint may also be understood to allege that all African-Americans in Iberia Parish have been injured by the defendants' conduct. This does not establish standing, however, since Reedom does not claim that he is a resident of Iberia, or even Louisiana. The record indicates rather that Reedom resides in Fort Worth, Texas.
Because Reedom has thus failed to establish that he has suffered any personal injury, we AFFIRM.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
. Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am., Inc. v. McCraw, 719 F.3d 338, 343 (5th Cir.2013).
. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 11, 124 S.Ct. 2301, 159 L.Ed.2d 98 (2004).
. Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., 494 F.3d 494, 496 (5th Cir.2007) (en banc).
. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, Local 5 v. City of Hous., 595 F.3d 588, 597-98 (5th Cir.2010).
. Id. at 598.
. Reedom's brief consists almost exclusively of an essay on due process by Peter Strauss, Peter Strauss, Due Process, Legal Info. Inst., http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process (last visited Jan. 13, 2013), and the text of Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).
. See Johnson v. Atkins, 999 F.2d 99, 100 (5th Cir.1993).
.See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 755, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984).