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)

Download PDF
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

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?