Court Opinion

ID: 9406144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 00:00:24.114009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:27.329504
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30763         Document: 00516804571             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/29/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-30763
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                  June 29, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Kendall Summers,                                                                    Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   State of Louisiana, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, as
   the political entity responsible for the Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System;
   Stephen Robert Russo, Doctor,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Middle District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 3:20-CV-21
                      ______________________________

   Before Davis, Smith, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30763       Document: 00516804571            Page: 2      Date Filed: 06/29/2023

                                       No. 22-30763

          Plaintiff-Appellant Kendall Summers, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the
   district court’s dismissal of his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
   Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing. We AFFIRM.
                                      I. BACKGROUND
          Summers is committed to the custody of the East Louisiana Mental
   Health System (“ELMHS”) in Jackson, Louisiana, after being adjudged not
   guilty by reason of insanity. Summers filed this action against the State of
   Louisiana, through the Department of Health (“LDOH”), and Courtney N.
   Phillips, the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health (collectively
   “Defendants”) alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with
   Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Section
   1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Summers seeks
   injunctive and declaratory relief requiring LDOH to develop a
   comprehensive outpatient treatment system in compliance with federal
   disability laws and to order LDOH to provide him with the reasonable
   accommodations he “may need to function in an outpatient basis.”
   Summers also seeks damages for the discriminatory harm already caused by
   LDOH.
          The district court consolidated Summers’ case for all purposes other
   than trial with substantively similar suits filed by seven other plaintiffs.
   Following consolidation, Defendants filed a superseding motion to dismiss
   plaintiffs’ claims for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The
   district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that
   plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims. The court gave plaintiffs
   twenty-eight days to amend their complaints to cure the deficiencies

          _____________________
          1
            Although Summers is pro se on appeal, he was represented by counsel throughout
   the proceedings in the district court.

                                             2
Case: 22-30763           Document: 00516804571              Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/29/2023

                                            No. 22-30763

   identified in its judgment. Summers did not file a third amended complaint
   to cure these deficiencies. He did, however, timely appeal the court’s
   judgment of dismissal.
                                           II. DISCUSSION
           We review de novo a district court’s Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal for lack of
   standing. 2 The party invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden of proof to
   show standing. 3 “To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must show
   (1) an injury in fact, (2) a sufficient causal connection between the injury and
   the conduct complained of, and (3) a likel[ihood] that the injury will be
   redressed by a favorable decision.” 4
           Liberally construed, 5 Summers’ brief on appeal (1) challenges the
   district court’s consolidation of his case with seven other plaintiffs, and (2)
   reasserts his arguments on standing. As to Summers’ assertion that the
   pretrial consolidation of his case violated his due process rights, we note that
   he did not raise this objection before the district court. Instead, in response
   to Defendants’ motion to consolidate, plaintiffs, including Summers, stated

           _____________________
           2
            Cornerstone Christian Sch. v. Univ. Interscholastic League, 563 F.3d 127, 133 (5th
   Cir. 2009).
           3
               Crane v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 244, 251 (5th Cir. 2015).
           4
               Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
           5
              Defendants assert that because Summers did not identify any error in the district
   court’s judgment, he has abandoned his appeal. However, as recognized by Defendants,
   Summers’ brief on appeal does include arguments from his district court brief in opposition
   to Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Accordingly, in light of Summers’
   pro se status and the need to construe his filings liberally, we find that Summers has not
   abandoned his appeal. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (noting
   that “[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally construed” (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted)).

                                                  3
Case: 22-30763          Document: 00516804571              Page: 4       Date Filed: 06/29/2023

                                           No. 22-30763

   that they did not oppose consolidation for purposes of “briefing legal issues
   and discovery.” Accordingly, Summers’ consolidation argument is waived. 6
           Additionally, the district court correctly concluded that Summers
   lacks standing to pursue his claims against Defendants for damages,
   injunctive, and declaratory relief. “At the pleading stage, allegations of
   injury are liberally construed,” but allegations of injury that are “merely
   conjectural or hypothetical do not suffice to confer standing.” 7 Although
   Summers asserts that he has “stated a claim for monetary relief,” he does
   not challenge the district court’s conclusion that he failed to allege a prior
   injury that is fairly traceable to the conduct of the Defendants. Specifically,
   Summers does not allege that he was previously eligible for community-based
   treatment but was denied the opportunity to participate because of
   Defendants’ failure to develop and implement a community-based program.
   Instead, Summers appears to argue that he was injured by his unlawful
   detention at ELMHS. However, Defendants lack the power to release
   Summers absent a court order. Accordingly, to the extent Summers has
   alleged a prior injury, such injury is not “fairly traceable” to Defendants’
   challenged actions. 8

           _____________________
           6
             See Keelan v. Majesco Software, Inc., 407 F.3d 332, 339-40 (5th Cir. 2005) (“If a
   party wishes to preserve an argument on appeal, the party must press and not merely
   intimate the argument during the proceedings before the district court. An argument must
   be raised to such a degree that the district court has an opportunity to rule on it.” (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted)).
           7
               Little v. KPMG LLP, 575 F.3d 533, 540 (5th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).
           8
              See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 506 (1992) (emphasizing that a
   plaintiff’s injury must be fairly traceable to the conduct of the defendant and not the result
   of “the independent action of some third party not before the court” (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted)); Little, 575 F.3d at 540 (“A claim of injury generally is too
   conjectural or hypothetical to confer standing when the injury’s existence depends on the
   decisions of third parties not before the court.”).

                                                 4
Case: 22-30763         Document: 00516804571             Page: 5        Date Filed: 06/29/2023

                                          No. 22-30763

          Summers’ appeal brief also lacks any argument challenging the district
   court’s dismissal of his injunctive and declaratory relief claims. In seeking
   injunctive relief, a plaintiff’s injury must be more than speculative, it must be
   “certainly impending.” 9          As explained by the district court, because
   Summers does not allege that he is currently (or will be imminently) qualified
   for community-based placement, any future injury from Defendants’ alleged
   lack of a community-based treatment program is hypothetical and
   speculative. Thus, Summers has not alleged an injury-in-fact sufficient to
   confer standing to pursue his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.
          Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing is
   AFFIRMED.

          _____________________
          9
              Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013).

                                                5