Christ v. Trump

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING 5 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/06/2022. (jmd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JESUS CHRIST,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 22-cv-02402-WHO
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
DONALD TRUMP,

Re: Dkt. No. 5

Defendant.

12
13

On April 20, 2022, Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero issued a Report and

14

Recommendation, recommending that the complaint filed by plaintiff Jesus Christ, also known as

15

Michelle Yvonne Wood, against defendant Donald Trump be dismissed without leave to amend.

16

R. & R. [Dkt. No. 5] 1:13–17. Plaintiff filed an objection on April 27, 2022. See Dkt. No. 8.

17

Having reviewed the record in this case, I agree with Judge Spero’s Report and

18

Recommendation and adopt it in full. Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by res judicata, as it is based

19

on the same alleged conduct as in plaintiff’s previous case against defendant, which Judge

20

Chhabria dismissed with prejudice. See Dkt. No. 1; see also Christ v. Trump, No. 21-CV-07140-

21

TSH, 2021 WL 7448553, at *1 (Sept. 17, 2021), adopted by Christ v. Trump, No. 21-CV-07140-

22

VC, 2021 WL 7448549, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2021). Her claims against defendant are also

23

barred by presidential immunity. And claims against Judges Chhabria and Hixson are barred by

24

judicial immunity.

25

Plaintiff contests the Report and Recommendation on the grounds that: (1) dismissal is

26

unconstitutional because it “allows judges to deliver not guilty verdicts . . . without the consent of

27

a jury”; (2) plaintiff was denied her First Amendment right to speak in court; (3) presidential

28

immunity is “unconstitutional” and does not bar claims against defendant; and (4) a jury––not a

1

judge––must determine the validity of claims. See Obj. to R. & R. [Dkt. No. 8] at 2–3. The first

2

two objections overlap with arguments raised in the previous complaint. The other objections are

3

equally deficient.

4

First, plaintiff argues that her claims against defendant are not barred by presidential

5

immunity. See id. at 3. I again agree with Judge Spero. See R. & R. at 5:6–7. Defendant has

6

“absolute presidential immunity from damages liability for acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his

7

official responsibility.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 756 (1982). Because plaintiff’s claims

8

appear to be based on defendant’s actions as president, they are barred by this immunity.
Second, plaintiff argues that it is improper for a judge to determine the validity of claims.

10

See Obj. to R. & R. at 2. It is the court’s responsibility to evaluate the sufficiency of a complaint

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

and determine whether a plaintiff’s claim may proceed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; see also Ashcroft v.

12

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). Judge Spero acted well within his authority in reviewing

13

plaintiff’s claims and recommending that they be dismissed.

14

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: May 6, 2022

17
18
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2