Court Opinion

ID: 9919605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-18 19:00:59.759815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:22.730277
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30521         Document: 00517036516             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/18/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 23-30521                                    FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                           January 18, 2024
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   Melanie Jerusalem,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Department of State Louisiana; R. Kyle Ardoin, Secretary
   of State,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Middle District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 3:22-CV-516
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Appellant Melanie Jerusalem brought this case against the
   Department of State of Louisiana and the Secretary of State, contending that
   Louisiana’s voting machines are subject to corruption. The district court sua

         _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30521      Document: 00517036516           Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/18/2024

                                     No. 23-30521

   sponte dismissed her claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We
   AFFIRM.
                                  Background
          Appellant Melanie Jerusalem filed this case in the Middle District of
   Louisiana on July 28, 2022. In August 2022, she filed an amended complaint,
   alleging that she “has not received justice in the matter of the 2020 election
   and has been forced to utilize the same uncertified voting machines [on
   multiple occasions].” Appellant further alleged that Louisiana’s voting
   machines are not secure and are subject to tampering. Appellant brought suit
   under Louisiana election laws and Section 231(b) of the Help America Vote
   Act (“HAVA”) and sought a declaratory judgment that the Defendants
   retain all election records.
          On September 6, 2022, Appellees filed a motion to dismiss which
   Appellant opposed. On June 26, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued her
   report, and recommended that the district judge sua sponte dismiss
   Appellant’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter
   jurisdiction because Appellant lacked standing. The district court adopted
   the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and dismissed the
   case without prejudice. Jerusalem appealed.
                             Standard of Review
          The “court reviews a district court's grant of a 12(b)(1) motion to
   dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo[.]” T.B. ex rel. Bell v.
   Northwest Indep. Sch. Dist., 980 F.3d 1047, 1050 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation
   omitted). “We take ‘the well-pled factual allegations of the complaint as true
   and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.’” Id. at 1051
   (quoting Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2008)).

                                          2
Case: 23-30521      Document: 00517036516            Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/18/2024

                                      No. 23-30521

                                   Discussion
          To confer standing, a plaintiff in federal court must allege an actual
   case or controversy. Ford v. NYLCare Health Plans of Gulf Coast, Inc., 301
   F.3d 329, 332 (5th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). For a federal court to assert
   jurisdiction, a plaintiff must have established that (1) they have suffered an
   “injury in fact” which is “concrete and particularized,” and “actual or
   imminent,” not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal connection between
   the injury complained of, which must be fairly traceable to the challenged
   action of the defendant; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be “redressed
   by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61
   (1992) (citation amended) (internal quotations omitted). The district court
   did not err in dismissing Appellant’s case for lack of subject matter
   jurisdiction as Appellant has failed to allege an injury in fact.
          Appellant argues that she was injured because the voting machines in
   Louisiana are not certified, and the machines will diminish her voice and
   cause her irreparable harm. A “plaintiff seeking relief in federal court must
   [] demonstrate that he has ‘a personal stake in the outcome, . . . distinct from
   a generally available grievance about government[.]’” Gill v. Whitford, 138 S.
   Ct. 1916, 1923 (2018) (quoting Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439 (2007)
   (per curiam) (internal citations and quotations omitted)). Further, Appellant
   has failed to allege actual and concrete harm that has or is certain to come to
   her because of Louisiana’s use of these voting machines. “Unless a party
   seeking a remedy can show direct injury, this court will deny standing.”
   Hotze v. Hudspeth, 16 F.4th 1121, 1124 (5th Cir. 2021) (finding that the four
   plaintiffs’ claim “that drive-thru voting hurt the ‘integrity’ of the election
   process . . . was far too generalized to warrant standing.”) (quoting Friends of
   St. Frances Xavier Cabrini Church v. FEMA, 658 F.3d 460, 466 (5th Cir.
   2011)). Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Appellant’s
   claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

                                           3
Case: 23-30521   Document: 00517036516        Page: 4   Date Filed: 01/18/2024

                               No. 23-30521

                             Conclusion
         We AFFIRM the district court.

                                    4