Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-1015 GMS.
September 24, 2004
MEMORANDUM
I. INTRODUCTION
On November 7, 2003, Randall E. Hill III brought this claim against WPVI Channel 6 after WPVI allegedly broadcast an R-rated movie without properly editing the foul language. (D.I. 2.) Hill seeks unspecified damages for his resultant psychological trauma. (Id.) The basis for his suit is unclear because he only specifies "Federal law of obscenity by the FCC" in the complaint. (Id. at 2.) Presumably, he is referring to 18 U.S.C. § 1464 (2000), which states:
Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Hill also moved to proceed in forma pauperis (D.I. 1), which was granted (D.I. 5). The motion now before the court is his motion for appointment of counsel, which he filed twice. (D.I. 3; D.I. 6.) However, because Hill does not have standing, his claim is dismissed and his motion for appointment of counsel is denied as moot.
II. DISCUSSION
The court is obliged to examine sua sponte the matter of standing under "the case-or-controversy requirement associated with Art. III." Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 331 (1977). The statute at issue here, § 1464, is part of the federal criminal code. Its enforcement is the responsibility of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under 47 U.S.C. §§ 303(r), 312(a)(6), 312(b), 503(b)(1)(D). Consequently, an individual citizen has no standing to enforce § 1464 because the Communications Act of 1934 created no private right of action. Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm'n, 316 U.S. 4; 14 (1942). Therefore, Hill does not have Art. III standing to bring suit under § 1464.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Hill's case must be dismissed, and his motion for appointment of counsel must be denied as moot.
This does not mean Hill is without recourse. He may file a complaint with the FCC. See http://www.fcc.gov/parents/content.html.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:1. The plaintiff's complaint (D.I. 2) is DISMISSED;
2. The plaintiff's motion of November 7, 2003, for appointment of counsel (D.I. 3) is DENIED as moot; and
3. The plaintiff's motion of January 9, 2004, for appointment of counsel (D.I. 6) is DENIED as moot.