Court Opinion

ID: 9946446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 19:01:28.753342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:26.486341
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20401           Document: 34-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/29/2024

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

                                                                                         FILED
                                   No. 23-20401
                                                                                  February 29, 2024
                                 Summary Calendar
                                 ____________                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                         Clerk
John J. Dierlam,

                                                                 Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                         versus

Joseph R. Biden, in his official capacity as President of the United States;
United States Department of Health and Human
Services; Xavier Becerra, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services; United States Department of Treasury;
Janet Yellen, Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury; United
States Department of Labor; Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary,
U.S. Department of Labor,

                                           Defendants—Appellees.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:16-CV-307
                  ______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20401        Document: 34-1        Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/29/2024

                                  No. 23-20401

       Pro se Plaintiff John Dierlam brought claims challenging the
Affordable Care Act (ACA) alleging a myriad of violations of the United
States Constitution and The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Dierlam sought both retrospective and prospective relief.
       This pro se case was previously before this court in 2020. See Dierlam
v. Trump, 977 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 2020). There, we remanded the case so the
district court could conduct a full mootness analysis and so Plaintiff could
seek a refund of the shared-responsibility payments he made under the ACA
from 2014-2017 (a fee imposed on individuals who failed to purchase health
insurance) (retrospective relief). Id. at 475, 478. As to prospective relief, this
court concluded that changes in the law raised questions of standing and
mootness which the district court was to address on remand. Id. at 473-74.
       On remand, the district court granted Defendants’ Partial Motion to
Dismiss finding that Plaintiff’s claims were moot and/or lacked standing
because the Tax Cut and Jobs Act reduced the shared-responsibility
payments to $0; the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
created exemptions to the contraceptive-coverage requirement, which
included an individual exemption for individuals like Plaintiff; and Plaintiff
could not state an injury under § 1502(c) of the ACA. After permitting
Plaintiff to file a Third Amended Complaint, Defendants filed another Partial
Motion to Dismiss which the district court granted. Plaintiff appealed.
       This court has considered this appeal on the basis of the briefs and
pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, the judgment is affirmed
for the reasons stated in the district court’s detailed clarifying memorandum
on the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. Those reasons
also apply to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. The district court did
not err in granting Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss. We AFFIRM.

                                        2