Court Opinion

ID: 9367527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 01:00:22.067646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:00.977277
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40625    Document: 00516629961       Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/31/2023

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

                                                                           FILED
                               No. 22-40625                         January 31, 2023
                             Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                           Clerk

   Kenneth Allen Pruitt,

                                                        Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                    versus

   Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., acting alone, or in
   concert, in a purported official capacity; John Forbes
   Kerry, acting alone, or in concert, in a purported
   official capacity; United States Department of
   Treasury, acting alone, or in concert; United States
   Environmental Protection Agency, acting alone, or in
   concert; United States National Institute of
   Environmental Health Sciences, acting alone, or in
   concert; Janet Yellen, head of USDT; Michael S.
   Regan, head of EPA; Rickard Woychik, head of NEIHS,

                                                     Defendants—Appellees.

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 9:21-CV-13
Case: 22-40625          Document: 00516629961             Page: 2      Date Filed: 01/31/2023

                                          No. 22-40625

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
           This appeal arises from Kenneth Pruitt’s suit against numerous
   Government entities for allegedly exceeding their constitutional authority.
   Because Pruitt has failed to establish standing, we AFFIRM.
                                   I.      Background
           Pruitt filed a complaint followed by three motions in federal district
   court in early 2021. Each of the motions sought the same relief: the district
   court’s enjoinment of the Government’s reentry into the Paris Agreement1
   because it is a “treaty” that requires the Senate’s “advice and consent.”
   U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2. The district court denied all three motions.
   To temporarily evade review of his underlying complaint, he filed an
   interlocutory appeal in this court. We ultimately dismissed that appeal on
   jurisdictional grounds. The Supreme Court subsequently denied his petition
   for a writ of certiorari.
           After Pruitt’s failed appeals, the Government filed a motion to dismiss
   his complaint because he failed to establish standing. The district court
   granted the Government’s motion, reasoning that Pruitt’s status as a
   landowner and taxpayer did not establish standing. Pruitt timely appealed.
   He asks that we reconsider standing and reach his arguments on the merits.
                             II.     Standard of Review
           We review a district court’s dismissal for lack of standing de novo. See
   Cornerstone Christian Schs. v. Univ. Interscholastic League, 563 F.3d 127, 133
   (5th Cir. 2009).

           *
               This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
           1
            The Paris Agreement is an international compact by which participating countries
   have agreed to combat climate change.

                                                2
Case: 22-40625      Document: 00516629961          Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/31/2023

                                    No. 22-40625

                               III. Discussion
          Pruitt argues that the district court erred when it dismissed his appeal
   for lack of standing because the Government’s reentry into the Paris
   Agreement: (1) jeopardized his mineral interests in property he owns in
   Nacogdoches County, Texas; and (2) increased the taxes he owes to the
   federal government, causing him great financial hardship. We disagree.
          “To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) an injury in
   fact that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent; (2) is fairly
   traceable to the defendants’ actions; and (3) is likely to be redressed by a
   favorable decision.” Barilla v. City of Houston, 13 F.4th 427, 430 (5th Cir.
   2021) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Regarding the
   particularized requirement, the Supreme Court has explained “that the
   injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Ariz.
   Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 134 (2011). Accordingly,
   the Supreme Court has recognized that “a plaintiff claiming only a generally
   available grievance about government . . . does not state an Article III case or
   controversy.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 556 (1992).
          Here, Pruitt’s argument that he is a taxpayer and landowner fail to
   establish standing. First, his taxpayer argument is unsustainable because it
   conflicts with Supreme Court precedent. As the Winn court explained,
   “[a]bsent special circumstances . . . standing cannot be based on a plaintiff’s
   mere status as a taxpayer.” 563 U.S. at 134. That leaves his contention that
   his status as a landowner establishes standing. But the injury he purports to
   have—damage to his mineral interests—is neither concrete nor
   particularized. At best, his alleged injury is a “generally available grievance”
   about the impact of the President’s decision to reenter the Paris Agreement.
   See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 556 (denying standing based on “nonconcrete
   injuries” that “can be brought by anyone”). Put differently, any landowner

                                          3
Case: 22-40625      Document: 00516629961           Page: 4   Date Filed: 01/31/2023

                                     No. 22-40625

   in the country could claim the same injury that Pruitt does here. See id.
   Because he has not demonstrated that the Government’s reentry into the
   Paris Agreement has caused a concrete and particularized injury as to him,
   he has failed to establish standing.
                               IV.    Conclusion
          For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal
   of Pruitt’s claim for lack of standing.

                                             4