Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-4268.
December 10, 2004
ORDER — MEMORANDUM
AND NOW, this 10th day of December, 2004, "Defendants' Motion to Dismiss" is granted, and plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Plaintiff Richard F. Boone, pro se, did not respond to defendants' motion.
Plaintiff's complaint, in its entirety, states:
This class action is brought to protest legislation sought to amend the Voting Rights Act, to express the unlawful character to insinuate, allege, or infer the extension of such to any natural born citizen* (regardless of race, creed, or color), the affectuation of rights which are inalienable. * of the United States of America.
The complaint does not allege an injury in fact, or a causal connection between an injury and the described conduct, or that a favorable ruling by this court will redress any injury. Plaintiff, therefore, does not have standing to bring a claim.See Trump Hotels Casino Resorts, Inc. v. Mirage Resorts, Inc., 140 F.3d 478, 484-85 (3d Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). Absent standing, a complaint is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. City of Philadelphia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 277 F.3d 415, 419 n. 3 (3d Cir. 2002); Maio v. Aetna, Inc., 221 F.3d 472, 482 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2000). Additionally, plaintiff "protest[s] legislation sought," but apparently not passed. Until the unnamed legislation is passed, plaintiff's claim will not be ripe for adjudication. See Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998). Moreover, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has exclusive jurisdiction over all claims concerning the Voting Rights Act, see 42 U.S.C. § 1973 l(b). Because this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's complaint, it must be dismissed.