Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Gencarelli v. McDonald's Corp.

Gencarelli v. McDonald's Corp.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 72 |Likes:
Published by Dave Scriven-Young

More info:

Published by: Dave Scriven-Young on Sep 22, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/22/2011

pdf

text

original

 
Order Form (01/2005)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judgeor Magistrate Judge
Harry D. Leinenweber 
Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 
11 C 5573
DATE
8/19/2011
CASETITLE
Gencarelli vs. McDonald’s Corp.
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
It is hereby ordered that plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. His motionto proceed
in forma pauperis
is denied as moot.
O
[ For further details see text below.]
 Notices mailed by Judicial staff.Mailed AO 450 form.
STATEMENT
Plaintiff James Gencarelli,
 pro se
, brings the instant complaint against McDonald’s Corp. and seeks leave to proceed
in forma pauperis
.Initially, before the court may grant
in forma pauperis
status or appoint counsel, it must screen the Plaintiff’scomplaint and dismiss it if (a) the allegation of poverty is untrue, (b) the action is frivolous or malicious, (c)the action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or (d) the action seeks monetary relief froma defendant who is immune from such relief.
 Brock v. Beelman Truck Co.,
10 C 0270, 2010 WL 1692769, at*1 (S.D. Ill. April 20, 2010); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that McDonald’s harms the environment because its food packaging containschemicals that harm the environment when they are discarded by customers. Plaintiff brings suit under theSafe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §300f, the Toxic Substance Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2619 (a)(1), andthe National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321,
et seq
.Although the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Toxic Substance Control Act contain citizen-suit provisions,the National Environmental Policy Act does not. More importantly, Plaintiff does not have standing to sueunder any of these laws because what he alleges is a generalized grievance.The constitutional minimum to establish standing requires a showing of a concrete injury in fact, causation,and redressability.
 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Even assuming that Plaintiff could meet this minimum, prudential principles of standing bar suits where the asserted harm is a generalgrievance shared by a large class of citizens.
 Allen v. Wright 
, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984).
11C5573 Gencarelli vs. McDonalds Corp.Page 1 of 2
Case: 1:11-cv-05573 Document #: 4 Filed: 08/19/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:13

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->