UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUN 30 2021
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Columbia
STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00710 (UNA)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )
)
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s complaint, Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”), and application for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2. The Court will grant the plaintiff’s in forma pauperis
application and dismiss the case because the plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter
jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action “at any time” if
it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction).
The plaintiff, a resident of Wilmington, North Carolina, sues the United States and
President Trump based on the attack on the United States Capitol that took place on January 6,
2021. See Compl. at 1, 2, 6–11. He alleges that the defendants “unlawfully, willingly, and
intentionally did in fact [commit] a gross abuse of power . . . and authority [by] command[ing] a
group of rioters to attack[.]” Id. at 3. He further alleges that defendants committed large-scale
discrimination and otherwise violated the Constitution, various statutes, and tenets of common
law, see id. at 1–4, 8, 11–13, and he seeks damages and injunctive relief, see id. at 14.
Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts “may only adjudicate actual, ongoing
controversies,” Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988), of which “the core component of standing
is an essential and unchanging part[.]” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). In
order to satisfy the standing requirement, a plaintiff must establish at a minimum (1) that he has
“suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and
particularized; and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical[;]” (2) that “a causal
connection” exists “between the injury and the conduct complained of . . . and [is] not the result
of the independent action of some third party not before the court[;]” and (3) that the injury will
“likely” be redressed by a favorable decision. Id. at 560–61 (alterations, internal quotation marks,
and citations omitted). Importantly, where “the asserted harm is a ‘generalized grievance’ shared
in substantially equal measure by . . . a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not
warrant exercise of jurisdiction.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975).
Here, the plaintiff has failed to establish standing because the complaint plainly raises a
generalized grievance, and the plaintiff provides no support for any specific injury that is concrete
and particularized to himself. See generally Compl.; see also, e.g., id. at 7 (asserting that there is
an “impending present and future danger of threatened injury” to plaintiff because there is a “likely
probability” that someone like President Trump “could be elected”). Consequently, this case will
be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the plaintiff’s motion
for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 3, will be denied as moot. A separate order accompanies this
memorandum opinion.
Date: June 30, 2021
DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH
United States District Judge