Hastey v. Bush, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 14, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-11086
Summary Calendar
MICHAEL LEE HASTEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GEORGE W. BUSH, JR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES;
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL; LARRY COMBEST, Chairman of
the House Agriculture Committee,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:03-CV-88-C
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Lee Hastey appeals the dismissal of his complaint
pursuant to a FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction. We AFFIRM.
“[B]efore a federal court can consider the merits of a
legal claim, the person seeking to invoke jurisdiction of
the court must establish the requisite standing to sue.”
Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 154-55 (1990). To establish

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 03-11086
-2-
standing, a plaintiff must show, inter alia, that he has suffered
an “injury in fact” that is concrete and particularized and
actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. McClure v.
Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 2003). A plaintiff cannot
establish standing simply by claiming an interest in governmental
observance of the Constitution, he must set forth instead a
particular and concrete injury to a personal constitutional
right. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for
Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 482 (1982).
Hastey has failed to identify how the enactment of animal-
rights legislation has interfered with his constitutional rights.
He thus has failed to meet his burden of establishing standing.
See Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 482; see also Ramming v. United
States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (the party asserting
jurisdiction bears the burden of proof). The district court
did not err by granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
See Hebert v. United States, 53 F.3d 720, 722 (5th Cir. 1995)
(grant of a FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) motion for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo).
Although he alleges judicial bias, Hastey has not identified
any ruling by the court, other than the grant of the motion to
dismiss, in support of his claim. Adverse judicial rulings
will support a claim of bias only if they reveal an opinion based
on an extrajudicial source or if they demonstrate such a high
degree of antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 03-11086
-3-
See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
Hastey has not shown that either situation applies here.
Because we AFFIRM the dismissal of the complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, we do not address Hastey’s argument
that the animal-rights legislation at issue violates the
Constitution.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --