“This Court has held that the interests of a taxpayer in the moneys of the federal treasury are too indeterminable, remote, uncertain and indirect to furnish a basis for an appeal to the preventive powers of the Court over their manner of expenditure.”
How later courts described this case
- “This Court has held that the interests of a taxpayer in the moneys of the federal treasury are too indeterminable, remote, uncertain and indirect to furnish a basis for an appeal to the preventive powers of the Court over their manner of expenditure.”
- “To have Article III standing to sue in federal court, plaintiffs must demonstrate, among other things, that they suffered a concrete harm.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-04145-PSG-AJR Date: May 21, 2024
Page 1 of 4
Title: Gregory Ackers v. University of California Board of Regents
DOCKET ENTRY: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
PRESENT:
HONORABLE A. JOEL RICHLIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
_Claudia Garcia-Marquez_ _______None_______ __None__
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter/Recorder Tape No.
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:
None Present None Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS)
On May 15, 2024, pro se Plaintiff Gregory Ackers (“Plaintiff”), filed a Civil
Complaint (“the “Complaint”) alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Seth’s
Law, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract. (Dkt. 1.) Also on May 15, 2024,
Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or
Costs, which is currently pending. (Dkt. 2.)
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is a tax-paying citizen of the State of
California and resides in San Diego. (Dkt. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that during the last
week of April 2023, Jewish students experienced fear and bigotry on the campus of the
University of California, Los Angeles (“UCLA”). (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Jewish
students “were physically blockaded from entry to academic buildings by masked crowds
of bullies & thugs, behaving as a De-Facto campus Police force.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges
that he is “particularly disturbed by the sharp-rise in Anti-Semitism targeting Jewish
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-04145-PSG-AJR Date: May 21, 2024
Page 2 of 4
Title: Gregory Ackers v. University of California Board of Regents
students on college campuses.” (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that UCLA is subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as
a recipient of federal funds. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges in Count 1 that Defendant
University of California Board of Regents (“Defendant”) breached its contractual duty to
Jewish students to maintain a safe environment for learning. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff alleges in
County 2 that Defendant violated the civil rights of Jewish students as protected by Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff alleges in Count 3 that Defendant
failed to protect Jewish students from religious discrimination in violation of Seth’s Law.
(Id.) Plaintiff alleges in Count 4 that Defendant breached its fiduciary duty to Jewish
students. (Id.) Plaintiff demands a jury trial and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as any other
relief that the Court finds appropriate. (Id. at 6.)
Federal courts are always under an independent obligation to examine their own
jurisdiction, and a federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no
jurisdiction.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), a trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte “where the claimant cannot possibly
win relief.” Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987); see also
Baker v. Director, U.S. Parole Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (per curiam)
(adopting Ninth Circuit’s position in Omar and noting that such a sua sponte dismissal “is
practical and fully consistent with plaintiff’s rights and the efficient use of judicial
resources”). Moreover, Congress requires district courts to dismiss a complaint if the
court determines that the complaint, or any portion thereof: (1) is frivolous or malicious;
(2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). An initial
review of the Complaint suggests the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action for the
reasons outlined below.
\\
\\
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-04145-PSG-AJR Date: May 21, 2024
Page 3 of 4
Title: Gregory Ackers v. University of California Board of Regents
I. DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff Lacks Standing.
Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires a concrete injury to the Plaintiff. See
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2200 (2021) (“To have Article III standing
to sue in federal court, plaintiffs must demonstrate, among other things, that they suffered
a concrete harm.”). “Central to assessing concreteness is whether the asserted harm has a
‘close relationship’ to a harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in
American courts—such as physical harm, monetary harm, or various intangible harms
including (as relevant here) reputational harm.” Id. Here, Plaintiff does not allege that he
personally experienced any of the allegedly wrongful conduct described in the Complaint.
(Dkt. 1 at 1-6.) Instead, Plaintiff merely alleges that he is a tax-paying citizen of the State
of California and resides in San Diego. (Id. at 1.) Thus, Plaintiff does not appear to be a
student at UCLA or to have been physically present on campus at any time when the
allegedly wrongful conduct occurred. (Id.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff does not appear to have alleged any concrete harm to himself
within the meaning of Article III of the U.S. Constitution. While any Jewish student at
UCLA who has experienced the alleged wrongful conduct described in the Complaint
would clearly have standing, Plaintiff does not allege that he is such a student. At most,
Plaintiff appears to seek standing as a taxpayer and citizen of the State of California. (Dkt.
1 at 1.) However, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the mere fact that
someone is a taxpayer is generally insufficient to confer standing in federal court. See,
e.g., Doremus v. Bd. of Ed. of Borough of Hawthorne, 342 U.S. 429, 433 (1952) (“This
Court has held that the interests of a taxpayer in the moneys of the federal treasury are too
indeterminable, remote, uncertain and indirect to furnish a basis for an appeal to the
preventive powers of the Court over their manner of expenditure.”).
II. DISPOSITION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this
action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. On or before
June 20, 2024, Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order. If Plaintiff fails to timely
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-04145-PSG-AJR Date: May 21, 2024
Page 4 of 4
Title: Gregory Ackers v. University of California Board of Regents
respond to this Order, this action may be dismissed for failure to obey court orders and/or
failure to prosecute. If Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may voluntarily
dismiss the action by filing a Notice of Dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(1). A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for convenience.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Attachment:
CV-09, Notice of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a) or (c).