Court Opinion

ID: 9965076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 17:01:48.437359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:41.444525
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-5099    Document: 010111041417   Date Filed: 05/01/2024   Page: 1
                                                               FILED
                                                   United States Court of Appeals
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS         Tenth Circuit

                            FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                        May 1, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                    Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                        Clerk of Court
     JOSEPH MARION RYWELSKI,

           Plaintiff - Appellant,

     v.                                                No. 23-5099
                                            (D.C. No. 4:23-CV-00217-CVE-SH)
     JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., President;                  (N.D. Okla.)
     U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
     MERRICK GARLAND, United
     States Attorney General; BUREAU
     OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO,
     FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES,

           Defendants - Appellees.
                        _________________________________

                             ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
                _________________________________

          The district court dismissed a complaint against President Biden, the

 Department of Justice, Attorney General Garland, and the Bureau of

 *
       Oral argument would not help us decide the appeal, so we have
 decided the appeal based on the briefing and the record. See Fed. R. App.
 P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

       This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
 under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
 But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if
 otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
Appellate Case: 23-5099   Document: 010111041417   Date Filed: 05/01/2024   Page: 2

 Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. The plaintiff, Mr. Joseph

 Marion Rywelski, appeals; and we affirm.

 I.    Mr. Rywelski bases his claim on the Declaration of Independence.

       In the complaint, Mr. Rywelski challenged the validity of an

 administrative rule addressing registration requirements on firearms. For

 this challenge, he relied on the Declaration of Independence. The district

 court sua sponte concluded that subject-matter jurisdiction didn’t exist. See

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

 II.   Standard of Review

       We conduct de novo review of the dismissal. Blue Valley Hosp., Inc.

 v. Azar, 919 F.3d 1278, 1283 (10th Cir. 2019).

       If a district court “determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter

 jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

 Courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-

 matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any

 party.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). So the district

 court appropriately considered whether subject-matter jurisdiction existed

 even though no one had questioned it. 1mage Software, Inc. v. Reynolds &

 Reynolds Co., 459 F.3d 1044, 1048 (10th Cir. 2006).

       “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” and “it is to be

 presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Becker v. Ute

 Indian Tribe of Uintah & Ouray Reservation, 770 F.3d 944, 946–47

                                        2
Appellate Case: 23-5099   Document: 010111041417    Date Filed: 05/01/2024   Page: 3

 (10th Cir. 2014) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). As the

 party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction, Mr. Rywelski had to establish

 jurisdiction. See id. at 947. So Mr. Rywelski needed to allege a basis for

             diversity jurisdiction (under 28 U.S.C. § 1332) or

             federal-question jurisdiction (under 28 U.S.C. § 1331).

 See Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1743,

 1746 (2019). 1

        In determining whether Mr. Rywelski met this burden, we credit all

 “well-pled factual allegations.” Blue Valley Hosp., 919 F.3d at 1283.

 Conclusory allegations of jurisdiction are not enough. Peterson v.

 Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197, 1206 (10th Cir. 2013).

 III.   Diversity Jurisdiction

        Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction if (1) the parties are

 citizens of different states or a foreign country and (2) the amount in

 controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The United States

 is not a citizen for diversity purposes, and federal agencies and

 administrators cannot be sued in diversity. See Texas v. Interstate Comm.

 1
        In the complaint, Mr. Rywelski also invoked supplemental
 jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). But supplemental jurisdiction exists
 only when the district court has diversity or federal-question jurisdiction
 over at least one claim. See United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs,
 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). Because the district court correctly determined
 that it lacked both diversity and federal-question jurisdiction, no basis
 existed for supplemental jurisdiction. See id. at 726–27.

                                         3
Appellate Case: 23-5099     Document: 010111041417   Date Filed: 05/01/2024   Page: 4

 Comm’n, 258 U.S. 158, 160 (1922) (concluding that diversity jurisdiction

 didn’t exist over the ICC and Railroad Labor Board because they “are not

 citizens of any State”); Gen. Ry. Signal Co. v. Corcoran, 921 F.2d 700,

 703–05 (7th Cir. 1991) (concluding that no diversity jurisdiction existed

 over the United States, a federal agency, and an agency administrator);

 Com. Union Ins. Co. v. United States, 999 F.2d 581, 584–85 (D.C. Cir.

 1993) (concluding that the Secret Service lacks citizenship for purposes of

 diversity jurisdiction).

       Because the defendants are not citizens of a state for diversity

 purposes, the district court correctly concluded that it lacked diversity

 jurisdiction.

 IV.   Federal-Question Jurisdiction

       A plaintiff properly invokes federal-question jurisdiction when he

 pleads “a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the

 United States.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006)

 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also McKenzie v. U.S. Citizenship

 & Immigration Servs., Dist. Dir., 761 F.3d 1149, 1156 (10th Cir. 2014)

 (“[J]urisdiction under § 1331 exists only where there is a colorable claim

 arising under federal law.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

       Mr. Rywelski alleged that the rule violates the Declaration of

 Independence. The district court concluded that these allegations did not

 confer federal-question jurisdiction because “the Declaration of

                                          4
Appellate Case: 23-5099   Document: 010111041417     Date Filed: 05/01/2024   Page: 5

 Independence does not create a private right of action enforceable against

 the federal government.” R. at 48–49.

       Mr. Rywelski disagrees, arguing that the Declaration of

 Independence is the foremost of the country’s “Organic Laws,” Appellant’s

 Opening Br. at 2, and that “[n]o other founding document, or federal law,

 of the United States [can] amend, repeal, or replace the Declaration or the

 rights recited therein,” id. at 3; see also id. at 6. He insists that

             the Declaration of Independence is “substantive law” creating
              “a legal basis for relief” and

             any “judicial opinions denying the Declaration as law should be
              made null and void.”

 Id. at 6, 15. But his arguments reflect a misunderstanding of the purpose of

 the Declaration of Independence.

       The Declaration of Independence states the principles on which our

 government was founded. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542,

 553 (1875). The purpose was to guarantee the right of American colonies

 to seek independence from England, not to establish a government.

 See Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 158–59 (1830).

 The Declaration of Independence is thus a statement of principles and

 ideas, not of law, and does not grant enforceable rights. See Schifanelli v.

 U.S. Gov’t, 865 F.2d 1259 (4th Cir. 1989) (unpublished; per curiam) (“The

 Declaration of Independence is a statement of ideals, not law.”); see also

 Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 657, 680 (1838) (“[U]nder the

                                         5
Appellate Case: 23-5099   Document: 010111041417   Date Filed: 05/01/2024   Page: 6

 constitution [the court] is bound by events subsequent to the declaration of

 independence . . . .”). Accordingly, the district court correctly concluded

 that Mr. Rywelski’s allegations didn’t confer federal-question jurisdiction.

       Affirmed.

                                        Entered for the Court

                                        Robert E. Bacharach
                                        Circuit Judge

                                        6