“Among these prudential restrictions is the general rule that a litigant must assert his own legal rights and cannot assert the legal rights of a third party.”
How later courts described this case
- “Among these prudential restrictions is the general rule that a litigant must assert his own legal rights and cannot assert the legal rights of a third party.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
MICHAEL HUNT,
Plaintiff,
v. CAUSE NO. 3:23-CV-1012-DRL-MGG
CHRISTINA REAGLE et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael Hunt, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a “Verified Declaration in
Opposition with a Motion for Preliminary Injunction for the Defendants Ideology,
Decision, to Ban Jehovah Witness Religion Services,” which this court construes as a
complaint. ECF 1. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se
complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotations
and citations omitted). Nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the
merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.
Mr. Hunt has sued Christina Reagle, David Liebel, Andrew Pazera, John Galipeau,
and John Hicks. He alleges that, at some point in 2023, the defendants issued a facility
directive to ban the Jehovah’s Witnesses religion at the Westville Correctional Facility by
preventing volunteers and ministers from coming to the prison. Mr. Hunt is currently
housed at the Pendleton Correctional Facility, but he anticipates he may be transferred to
Westville Correctional Facility in the future.
Mr. Hunt lacks standing to bring these claims.
Our cases have established that the ‘irreducible constitutional minimum’ of
standing consists of three elements. The plaintiff must have (1) suffered an
injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the
defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision. The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the
burden of establishing these elements. Where, as here, a case is at the
pleading stage, the plaintiff must clearly allege facts demonstrating each
element.”
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016), (quotations, citations and ellipsis omitted).
Mr. Hunt isn’t currently at Westville Correctional Facility and hasn’t been at the facility
since December 3, 2021. He hasn’t suffered any injury due to the 2023 facility directive
referenced in his complaint.
Mr. Hunt indicates that he suffered harm because, at some point when he was
previously incarcerated at Westville Correctional Facility, he wasn’t permitted to refuse
the COVID-19 vaccine. It isn’t clear when this occurred or who was responsible for his
inability to refuse a COVID-19 vaccine based on a religious objection. But, more
fundamentally, his inability to refuse a COVID-19 vaccine before his transfer on
December 3, 2021, has nothing to do with the alleged changes in 2023 that give rise to this
lawsuit. Therefore, Mr. Hunt hasn’t alleged that he suffered an injury related to the
conduct he is suing about here, and he doesn’t have standing to bring this claim.
To the extent that Mr. Hunt is attempting to raise claims on behalf of other inmates,
this isn’t permissible. He lacks standing to assert the constitutional claims of other
inmates and can’t pursue injunctive relief on their behalf. See Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d
727, 739–40 (7th Cir. 1999) (“Among these prudential restrictions is the general rule that
a litigant must assert his own legal rights and cannot assert the legal rights of a third
party.”).
“The usual standard in civil cases is to allow defective pleadings to be corrected,
especially in early stages, at least where amendment would not be futile.” Abu-Shawish v.
United States, 898 F.3d 726, 738 (7th Cir. 2018). However, “courts have broad discretion to
deny leave to amend where . . . the amendment would be futile.” Hukic v. Aurora Loan
Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009). For the reasons previously explained, such is the
case here.
For these reasons, the request for a preliminary injunction is DENIED and this case
is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED.
December 11, 2023 s/ Damon R. Leichty
Judge, United States District Court