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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?