John Patrick Moran v. Lloyd Austin

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1989
JOHN PATRICK MORAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LLOYD AUSTIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; MICHELLE
HOWARD, Retired Admiral, in her official capacity as Chair of the Naming
Commission; CHRISTINE WORMUTH, in her official capacity as Secretary of the
Army; KAREN DURHAM-AGUILERA, in her official capacity as Executive
Director of the Office of the Army Cemeteries (Army National Military Cemeteries,
ANMC),
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Patricia Tolliver Giles, District Judge. (1:23-cv-01681-PTG-LRV)
Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 27, 2025
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Patrick Moran, Appellant Pro Se. Ezekiel Andrew Peterson, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
John Patrick Moran appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
his amended complaint in which he challenged the removal of a Confederate statute from
Arlington National cemetery for lack of standing. To establish standing under Article III,
a plaintiff must allege (1) a concrete and particularized injury in fact that is (2) fairly
traceable to the challenged action, and that (3) will likely be redressed by a favorable
decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). The district court
determined that Moran failed to allege a concrete injury fact for Article III standing. We
agree. While Moran argus that he established standing based on a procedural injury, citing
Defend Arlington v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., Nos. 23-441, 23-2094, 2023 WL 8600567 (D.D.C.
Dec. 12, 2023) (unpublished), the district court in that out-of-circuit case addressed only
the redressability requirement of standing. However, while “the redressability requirement
is relaxed” when a plaintiff alleges a procedural injury based on a violation of a statute,
Defend Arlington, 2023 WL 8600567, at *9 (internal quotation marks omitted), “[u]nlike
redressability, . . . the requirement of injury in fact is a hard floor of Article III jurisdiction
that cannot be removed by statute,” Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 497
(2009).
Here, the district court properly applied the standards for determining whether
Moran alleged a concrete and particularized injury in fact and correctly concluded that he
alleged no such injury. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Moran v. Austin,
No. 1:23-cv-01681-PTG-LRV (E.D. Va., Sept. 27, 2024). We dispense with oral argument

-- 2 of 3 --

3
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --