McNeil v. United States

Summary

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Jerry P. McNeil’s complaint seeking to prevent former President Bill Clinton from receiving post-incumbency benefits. The court agreed that McNeil failed to identify legal authority supporting the requested injunction and lacked standing because he could not show a concrete and particularized injury or qualify for taxpayer standing. The court also rejected McNeil’s argument that he was entitled to default judgment because the defendants had filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a claim because McNeil identified no federal statute or other authority supporting his claim against the defendants or authorizing the requested injunction.
2. McNeil lacked standing because he could not demonstrate a concrete and particularized actual or imminent injury, and he did not qualify for the limited taxpayer-standing exception because he could not show a nexus between the challenged congressional appropriations and an infringement of his constitutional rights.
3. Default judgment was not appropriate because a pre-answer motion to dismiss is an appropriate defense under Rule 55, and an answer is not due until the court resolves the motion unless the court postpones disposition until trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a claim for injunctive relief against payment of former President Clinton's post-incumbency benefits.
2. Whether McNeil had standing to challenge payment of those benefits, including under the taxpayer-standing exception.
3. Whether McNeil was entitled to default judgment because the defendants filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss rather than an answer.

Disposition

affirmed