Monroe v. Kijakazi
- Sallie Kim
- 3:20-cv-07295
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Monroe v. Kijakazi, Judge Kim ordered briefing on whether Monroe has standing to pursue his constitutional challenge, without deciding standing or the motion.
Sean Everett Monroe and Kilolo Kijakazi, because the court required them to submit briefs addressing whether Monroe had standing.
What happened
In Monroe v. Kijakazi, Sean Everett Monroe challenged the administrative proceedings on constitutional grounds in a motion for summary judgment. The court said it was unclear whether the parties had addressed whether he had standing, meaning a sufficient legal basis to bring the challenge.
The court ordered Monroe to file a brief of no more than five pages addressing standing by January 21, 2022. Kilolo Kijakazi was ordered to respond with a brief of no more than five pages by January 28, 2022.
Judge Sallie Kim issued the order on January 14, 2022. The order required briefing but did not decide whether Monroe had standing or rule on his summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Monroe v. Kijakazi · No. 3:20-cv-07295
- Sallie Kim
- Jan. 14, 2022
Background
Sean Everett Monroe filed a motion for summary judgment raising a constitutional challenge to administrative proceedings. The court stated that it was unclear whether the parties had squarely addressed whether Monroe had standing—the legal requirement that a person have a sufficient connection to a dispute to invoke the court's authority.
Court's Action
The court explained that federal courts must examine jurisdictional issues such as standing, including on their own initiative. To give the parties an opportunity to address the issue, the court ordered Monroe to file a brief of no more than five pages addressing standing by January 21, 2022. Kilolo Kijakazi was ordered to file a response of no more than five pages by January 28, 2022.
Result
Judge Sallie Kim's order required additional briefing on standing. It did not decide whether Monroe had standing and did not rule on the summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.