People of the United States of America v. Trump et al

Filing 29

Order by Judge James Donato granting 22 Motion to Dismiss.(jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. No. 22

10
11

Case No. 17-cv-00451-JD

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Attorney Andrew W. Shalaby filed this case on behalf of the “People of the United States

14

of America and the State of California” to enjoin and invalidate as unconstitutional an executive

15

order issued by President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017 for “Protecting the Nation from

16

Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” Dkt. No. 1. The Court dismissed the complaint

17

for lack of Article III standing by a specific named plaintiff. Dkt. No. 11.

18

The amended complaint, Dkt. No. 21, is dismissed for the same reason. It makes the same

19

generalized reference to the “people of the United States” as plaintiffs that the Court found

20

deficient in the prior order. Id.; see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 575 (1992);

21

Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774, 779 (9th Cir. 2011). The “statements of support” tendered by

22

attorney Shalaby in a request for judicial notice are no cure for this fundamental standing problem.

23

The statements are almost certainly not appropriate for judicial notice, see Fed. R. Evid. 201, and

24

in any event none of the individuals are actually named as plaintiffs in the amended complaint or

25

otherwise mentioned in it.

26

Reliance on a “private Attorney General” theory, Dkt. No. 21 ¶ 1, is equally unavailing.

27

The Article III showing is an “irreducible constitutional minimum” that this purported theory

28

cannot satisfy. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (1992).

1

Shalaby has now had two opportunities to present a cognizable complaint, and he was

2

given express guidance from the Court on how to fix the standing problem. The Court has no

3

reason to believe that another round of amendment will produce a different outcome or a

4

cognizable complaint. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed with prejudice. See Guzman v.

5

Sogge, 2014 WL 11904579, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2014), aff’d, 599 Fed. Appx. 329 (9th Cir.

6

2015).

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 7, 2017

9
10
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2