Court Opinion

ID: 9957698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 21:00:52.268301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:34.389817
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                      ____________
No. 23-5245                                                September Term, 2023
                                                                      1:23-cv-02522-UNA
                                                      Filed On: April 4, 2024
Danilo Augusto Feliciano, also known as
Danil Ezekiel Faust,

              Appellant

       v.

Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the
United States,

              Appellee

            ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

       BEFORE:       Katsas, Rao, and Garcia, Circuit Judges

                                     JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

        ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s October 17, 2023 order
dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction be affirmed. As to appellant’s request for a
writ of mandamus, he has not identified any error in the district court’s dismissal for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction because he has failed to show that the Attorney General
has a clear duty to act. See Illinois v. Ferriero, 60 F.4th 704, 715 (D.C. Cir. 2023); see
also Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831-32, 838 (1985) (holding that a decision
whether to institute enforcement proceedings is “generally committed to an agency’s
absolute discretion”). As to appellant’s requests for relief under the Administrative
Procedure Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act, appellant has failed to establish his
standing to sue. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573-74 (1992) (“[A]
plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only
harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and
laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the
public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy.”); see also Lance v.
Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 442 (2007) (per curiam) (voters’ allegations that state had not
followed the Elections Clause did not amount to particularized injury).
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-5245                                                September Term, 2023

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

                                       Per Curiam

                                                 FOR THE COURT:
                                                 Mark J. Langer, Clerk

                                          BY:    /s/
                                                 Daniel J. Reidy
                                                 Deputy Clerk

                                          Page 2