Hunter v. Graham et al

Filing 8

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. Petitioner Michael Hunter's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #2 and motion to appoint Liz Cheney as a guardian ad litem #7 are DENIED AS MOOT. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright on 5/9/2022. (RJE)

CASE 0:22-cv-00773-WMW-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Michael Hunter,

Case No. 22-cv-0773 (WMW/ECW)
Petitioner,
ORDER

v.
Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz,
Josh Hawley, Joe Manchin, Kyrsten
Sinema, Mitch McConnell, One Hundred
Forty Eight Unnamed Congresspersons,
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas, and Donald J.
Trump,1
Respondents.
Before the Court are Petitioner Michael Hunter’s petition to issue a writ of
mandatory injunction, (Dkt. 1), motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP),
(Dkt. 2), and motion to appoint Liz Cheney as a guardian ad litem, (Dkt. 7). For the
reasons addressed below, the Court dismisses the petition for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction and denies as moot Hunter’s motions.
BACKGROUND
Hunter’s petition alleges that several members of the United States Congress are
corrupt. The petition also alleges that Congress inappropriately passed certain legislation
during the presidency of Donald J. Trump and failed to pass certain legislation during the
presidency of Joseph R. Biden. Hunter, therefore, contends that certain individuals are

1

The petition names “Joe Machin” and “Christian Sinema” as respondents. The
Court presumes that Petitioner intended to name Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.

CASE 0:22-cv-00773-WMW-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 3

constitutionally required to resign from their offices. Hunter also alleges that certain
individuals in the government have incited division.
Hunter requests that the Court issue injunctions (1) directing the IRS to audit
numerous members of Congress; (2) compelling certain members of Congress to
“[d]isqualify” themselves and to vote in favor of “President Biden’s proposed Build Back
Better Law”; (3) compelling a “vote on the bill to protect the Federal rights to vote and use
of the United States Mails to timely [s]ubmit vote”; and (4) requiring “employment at every
polling site in the country of deputy United States Marshal Service” to protect voters’ rights.
Hunter also asks the Court to enter a declaratory judgment that “the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
of 2017” is void, and to enjoin Respondents from “spreading any fraudulent claims of the
elections,” “Trump shall no longer claim he won the 2020 election.” (Dkt. 1 at 33.)
ANALYSIS
The United States Constitution authorizes federal district courts to decide cases or
controversies. U.S. Const. art. III.

To qualify as a case or controversy, a case must

“embody a genuine, live dispute between adverse parties.” Carney v. Adams, 141 S. Ct.
493, 498 (2020); accord County of Mille Lacs v. Benjamin, 361 F.3d 460, 463 (8th Cir.
2004). Accordingly, litigants must establish standing, which requires that they have
“suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged
conduct[ ] and is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Carney, 141 S. Ct.
at 498 (internal quotation marks omitted).
A plaintiff cannot establish Article III standing by pointing to “a generally available
grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in the

2

CASE 0:22-cv-00773-WMW-ECW Doc. 8 Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 3

proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly
and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504
U.S. 555, 573–74 (1992); accord Carney, 141 S. Ct. at 498.
Hunter alleges that various legislative officials have violated the United States
Constitution. But the petition does not contain facts that support how Hunter has personally
suffered a concrete and particularized injury. Instead, Hunter presents only generalized
grievances. Because Hunter fails to establish standing, the Court lacks jurisdiction over
this action.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing analysis and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction.
2.

Petitioner Michael Hunter’s application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, (Dkt. 2), and motion to appoint Liz Cheney as a guardian ad litem, (Dkt. 7), are
DENIED AS MOOT.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: May 9, 2022

s/Wilhelmina M. Wright
Wilhelmina M. Wright
United States District Judge

3