Degenes v. Murphy

2 Citing cases

  1. Frein v. Pelosi

    No. 21-CV-1038-LJV (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2022)   Cited 2 times
    Dismissing sua sponte Frein's complaint against former Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi

    And, as this Court previously explained, to the extent that Frein is complaining that Speaker Pelosi or her office did not satisfactorily respond after he contacted her, that claim also does not present a cognizable injury sufficient for Article III standing. Id. (citing DeGenes v. Murphy, 2008 WL 450426, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2008), aff'd, 289 Fed.Appx. 558 (3d Cir. 2008)).

  2. Frein v. Feinstein

    No. 20-CV-252-LJV (W.D.N.Y. Jul. 1, 2021)   Cited 4 times

    Moreover, to the extent that Frein is complaining that he did not receive a satisfactory response from Senator Feinstein or her office, that claim does not present a cognizable injury sufficient for Article III standing. See, e.g., DeGenes v. Murphy, 2008 WL 450426, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2008) (dismissing the plaintiff's suit against a congressman for his failure to respond satisfactorily to the plaintiff for lack of standing because the plaintiff had not “identified an injury in fact”), aff'd, 289 Fed.Appx. 558 (3d Cir. 2008). This Court might have subject matter jurisdiction over Frein's claim in the amended complaint that Senator Feinstein, along with the other defendants, committed “intellectual property theft.”