Gill v. Washington Dc Public Library

•

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

APR 19 2011 Clerk. U.S. District & Bankru Courts tor the District ot COIU~~ra

ANDREW GILL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

Civil Action No. 11 0740 D.C. PUBLIC LIBRARY, et aI., )

)

Defendants. )

J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on review of plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The Court will grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis but dismiss the complaint for the following reasons.

Plaintiff alleges that patrons of the Northwest One Public Library view pornographic materials when minor children are present. In one instance plaintiff states that a child "was attacked by an individual who was viewing the pornography," and that individual made "disgusting and obscene comments to the child regarding the child's presence." Compi. at 2. Plaintiff appears to bring this action on behalf of the child, as he demands that "the child who was attacked be apologized to." ld. at 3. In addition, plaintiff demands monetary damages and injunctive relief. ld.

Generally, a litigant must have standing in order to pursue a claim in a federal court. A plaintiff must demonstrate that his claims "spring from an 'injury in fact' - an invasion of a legally protected interest that is 'concrete and particularized,' 'actual or imminent,' and 'fairly traceable' to the challenged act of the defendant, and likely to be redressed by a favorable

./

.('t

/'

& decision in the federal court." Navegar, Inc. v. United States, 103 F.3d 994, 998 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders afWildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)). Standing may be denied to a litigant who seeks to assert the rights of a third party. Navegar, Inc. v. United States, 103 F.3d at 998. In the instant action, plaintiff asserts the rights of a minor child, but fails to articulate his relationship to the child and why he has standing to pursue the case on behalf of the child. The complaint therefore must be dismissed. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this same date.

DATE: (~ If.{, 2-0 I (