Maloney v. King
Maloney v. King
Opinion of the Court
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
James M. Maloney, an attorney, appearing pro se, appeals from a sua sponte order of the District Court entered June 6, 2000, dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The District Court properly concluded that Maloney lacks standing to bring his suit since, in his individual capacity, he has not alleged a sufficient injury-in-fact. See Innovative Health Systems, Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37, 46 (2d Cir. 1997). With regard to his qui tarn action, the District Court properly concluded that Maloney has neither a common law nor a statutory right to sue on behalf of the United States.
For the reasons set forth above, the order of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
. Appellate jurisdiction exists despite the fact that a separate judgment was not entered. See Selletti v. Carey, 173 F.3d 104, 109-10 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Where an order appealed from clearly represents a final decision and the appellees do not object to the taking of an appeal, the separate document rule is deemed to have been waived and the assumption of appellate jurisdiction is proper.") Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over the appeal of the June 6, 2000 order.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.