Purcell vs. Feinberg, (5th Cir. 2003)
Linked as:
Text
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .
R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-20740 Summary Calendar DEAN PURCELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus KENNETH FEINBERG, Special Master; THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL MASTER; JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-02-CV-262 January 24, 2003 Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Dean Purcell filed a claim challenging the constitutionality of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 (“the Fund”) created by the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, Pub. L.
No. 107-42, §§ 401-409, 115 Stat. 230, 237-41 (2001). The district court concluded that Purcell lacked standing to bring his claim; thus, the court lacked jurisdiction.
Purcell appeals the district court§ 8, of the Constitution;§ 8.” See Flast v. Cohen , 392 U.S. 83, 102-03 (1968). In cases not alleging an Establishment Clause violation, taxpayer standing requires that the plaintiff allege “direct injury.” Henderson v. Stalder , 287 F.3d 374, 381 n.7 (5th Cir. 2002).
Purcell argues that Congress in providing for local charity has violated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments by “trespassing on areas of authority reserved to the people or the state,” and has violated the Fifth Amendment by depriving him of property without due process of the law and by taking his private property for public use. Purcell’s arguments are analogous to those made by the plaintiff in Frothingham v. Mellon , 262 U.S. 447 (1923). See Flast , 392 U.S. at 91-92, 105-06. They do not suffice to confer standing, as no “direct injury” is alleged. Id. at 92.
Purcell also argues that the Fund violates the Equal Protection Clause by compensating some victims of crime but not others. Purcell bears the burden of establishing standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992).
Purcell has not established that he has suffered an injury in fact or that it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision.
Thus, the district court did not err when it dismissed PurcellÂ’s claim for his lack of standing. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
No. 02-20740
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Supreme Court - Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Russell J. Henderson, Et Al., Plaintiffs, Russell J. Henderson, Dorreen Keeler, Robert H. Loewy and Greater New Orleans Section of the National Council of Jewish Women, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Richard J. Stalder, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections and John Kennedy, State Treasurer, Defendants-Appellants.
- U.S. Supreme Court - Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968)
- U.S. Supreme Court - Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
