42 USC § 1981 action alleging racially discriminatory grantmaking; Standing; “Injury in fact”; Entry of judgment for defendants

The court held that plaintiff-Roberts lacked standing in this § 1981 action alleging racially discriminatory grantmaking because he failed to establish that defendants-Progressive and Circular Board caused his injuries. Rather, the court concluded that the injuries were self-inflicted. Defendants partnered to administer a grant program that helped small businesses buy commercial vehicles. Roberts started applying for a grant but did not complete the application once he learned that the program was for black owned and operated businesses. Roberts, who is white, sued under § 1981 for racial discrimination, seeking damages and injunctive relief. His complaint described “application-stage and grant-stage contracts.” The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on Roberts’s lack of standing. On appeal, the court assumed that he sufficiently pled “an injury in fact for the application-stage contract. The injury in question, as alleged in the complaint and argued on appeal, is that Roberts could not enter into—and obtain the benefits conferred by—the application-stage contract.” He conceded that the complaint did “not allege an injury in fact for the grant-stage contract. Thus, Roberts must establish standing for the application-stage contract to proceed in this litigation.” He contended “that he was injured because he was denied the ability to enter into the application-stage contract with Progressive and Circular Board. But [they] did not cause Roberts’s injuries. Roberts caused them.” He made the choice to close the online grant application before completing it. Thus, his alleged injuries were “self-inflicted. A self-inflicted injury generally fails the causation prong of the standing analysis.” Given that he “chose not to enter the application-stage contract[,] . . . he never subjected himself to the allegedly discriminatory grant program.” He did not allege that defendants “ever applied, or threatened to apply, the grant’s race-based eligibility requirement to him.” And because the complaint did not “clearly allege facts showing that Progressive and Circular Board caused Roberts’s injuries, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.” The court also found that the district court did not err by granting judgment to defendants. The “district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction[,]” and the court clarified that it was without prejudice. Affirmed.