Lambeth v. Trump ( 2020 )

FILED
8/19/2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Court for the District of Columbia
JAMES LAMBETH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 20-2160 (UNA)
)
DONALD J. TRUMP et al., )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s
Complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the
application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action “at any time” it determines that subject matter
jurisdiction is wanting).
Plaintiff has sued President Donald Trump, his Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Vice
President Mike Pence, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, and Senator Mitch McConnell,
in their official capacities, with regard to proposed legislation. In relevant part, plaintiff alleges:
A portion of the reported text of the HEALS Act bill includes
$1.75 billion for the design and construction of an FBI
headquarters in Washington, D.C. When reporters questioned
Mitch McConnell on the text, he deferred to the White House and
the Trump Administration. Plaintiff knew his constitutional rights
were being violated once Mitch McConnell confirmed to reporters
that the legislation text was “insisted” by “the administration”
since no person in the Executive branch has legislative powers
under the Constitution of the United States of America that he has
lived with his entire life.
1
Compl. ¶¶ 3-4. Plaintiff has brought this action “to enforce his elected officials to protect the
Constitution of the United States of America and to hold all persons accountable that broke their
oath of office.” Id. ¶ 5.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute,” and it is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited
jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations
omitted). Apart from the fact that the HEALS Act is proposed legislation, not law conferring
rights, see https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/update-on-the-coronavirus-response-heals-
act (last visited Aug. 18, 2020), plaintiff’s complaint is at most “a generalized grievance,” which
“normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975).
Therefore, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum
Opinion.
___________s/_______________
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge
Date: August 19, 2020
2