United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 96-41002
Summary Calendar.
Darlene B. LAWSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
John J. CALLAHAN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
May 5, 1997.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas.
Before WISDOM, JOLLY and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
WISDOM, Senior Circuit Judge:
Darlene Lawson appeals the district court's affirmance of the
denial of her claim for social security benefits. She contends
that the administrative law judge erred by not inquiring further
into her apparent waiver of counsel, by not posing a proper
hypothetical question to the vocational expert, and by not
considering her in a higher age category.
Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we
AFFIRM the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim for benefits for the
reasons stated by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district
court.
Lawson also alleges that the district court did not report her
case as a motion that has been pending for more than six months as
required by the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 476.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Lawson asked the district court for
1
declaratory judgment that the district court was in violation of
the Civil Justice Reform Act.
The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA) was enacted by
Congress in response to growing national concern regarding the
expense and delay encountered by most parties engaged in
litigation.1 The Act provided for the creation of local Civil
Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plans to effectuate the goals
of the Act and also for oversight by judicial advisory groups
designed to streamline what was to be a national effort. What the
Act did not do was create a cause of action allowing parties before
the court to assert the court's non-compliance with its own plan or
with the Act itself.
In the instant case, the plaintiff does not have standing to
challenge the district court's reporting practices under the CJRA.
The requirements for standing were articulated by the Supreme Court
aptly in Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for
Separation of Church and State.2 In that case, the Court stated
that Article III of the United States Constitution gives federal
courts jurisdiction over certain cases or controversies.3 Proof of
a "case or controversy" requires a litigant to show that: (1) "he
personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a
result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant" [injury
1
Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, Pub.L. 101-650, 104 Stat.
5089 (1990).
2
454 U.S. 464, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982).
3
U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, cl. 1.
2
in fact]; (2) "that the injury fairly can be traced to the
challenged action" [causation]; and (3) that the injury "is likely
to be redressed by a favorable decision" [redressability].4 The
plaintiff here has fallen short on all counts. Her complaint is
that the district court failed to report her case as a motion
pending for over six months. She has not alleged, however, any
particular injury suffered by her as a result of the failure to
report.5 Necessarily, having shown no injury, neither can the
plaintiff show causation. Finally, she cannot show that a
favorable decision by the court would redress any alleged injury.
As the plaintiff had no standing to assert a claim under the CJRA,
the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the merits
of the motion.
To the extent that the plaintiff relies on the Declaratory
Judgment Act, her motion must similarly fail.6 Section 2201 states
that "in a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction ...
any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate
pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any
interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further
relief is or could be sought".7 The meaning of "actual
4
Id. at 472, 102 S.Ct. at 758-59.
5
This assumes that the district court is in fact obligated to
report these cases under the CJRA. We express no opinion, however,
as to the merit in that assertion.
6
28 U.S.C. § 2201 et. seq.
7
We question whether the motion at issue is a "appropriate
pleading" within the meaning of the Act. Here, the Social Security
Commissioner is not an adverse, or even interested, party with
3
controversy" for the purposes of this section is identical to the
meaning of "case or controversy" for the purposes of Article III,
as elaborated above.8 As such, for the reasons given, the
plaintiff has not satisfied the "actual controversy" requirement of
§ 2201. Moreover, it is well settled that this section does not
confer subject matter jurisdiction on a federal court where none
otherwise exists.9 Consequently, the plaintiff's appeal of the
denial of her motion for declaratory judgment is DISMISSED for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. Further, as stated above, the
district court's denial of benefits is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
respect to the resolution of this motion. Rather, the plaintiff
asked the court for declaratory judgment against itself. We can
locate no federal case in which this has been done under the CJRA.
We are frankly unable to determine why the court entertained the
merits of the motion in the first instance.
8
Texas v. West Publishing Co., 882 F.2d 171 (5th Cir.1989).
9
Port Drum Co. v. Umphrey, 852 F.2d 148, 149 (5th Cir.1988);
See also Amalgamated Sugar Co. v. Bergland, 664 F.2d 818 (10th
Cir.1981); Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Reserve Ins. Co., 596 F.2d
914 (9th Cir.1979).
4