Barry Rosen v. United States, et al.

Federally-certificated Pro Se pilot, and aircraft owner, domiciled at a federally-funded airport, was denied standing by both the District Court and Ninth Circuit to challenge government entity actions which both usurped the express intent of Congress and denied pilot his statutory rights, asks the Court to confirm standing and compel review process consistent with NRDC v. FAA, 564 F.3d 549, 555 (2nd Cir. 2009) as Ninth Circuit prematurely denied standing for want of redressable harm under M.S. v. Brown, 902 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th 2018), and improperly branding pilot a serial litigant; incident thereto, the Court is also asked to review certain due process hurdles Pro Se litigants face. THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE:

1. Whether a federally certificated Pilot, who has a special and substantial interest in a not only a public-use airport but the entire national airspace system, demonstrated injury-in-fact when his interests protected by underlying statutes, were violated by the government respondents, when they entered into a settlement agreement that allowed immediate shortening of the runway, in addition to allowing closure of the airport and did so without seeking statutorily required public input on local, state and federal levels.

2. Whether Congress statutorily imparted standing on entire aviation community (including Pilots), via an express right to use the airspace system and right of consultation on matters pertaining to the airports and the airspace system, under 49 U.S.C. § 40103, Airway and Airport Improvement Act 49 U.S.C. § 47101 et seq. and specifically 49 U.S.C. § 47103(b)(1).