Arunga v. Romney et al

Filing 6

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 3 Report and Recommendations. This case is DISMISSED. Signed by Senior Judge Peter C Economus on 11/6/12. (jr1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES A-K ARUNGA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:12-cv-873
Judge Peter C. Economus

MITT ROMNEY, et al.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendants.

Plaintiff Arunga’s complaint, titled “Petition For Writ of Mandamus To The Respondents
Against Their Outlawed Political Ochlocracy,” asks this Court (1) to “outlaw” President Barack
Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as candidates for President of the
United States, and (2) to order Robert Gates and David Petraeus to be the legal candidates for
president and vice-president. (Doc. 2.)
Because Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, this case is controlled by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2), which provides that “the court shall dismiss the case . . . if . . . the action . . . (i) is
frivolous or malicious [or] (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”
In a Report and Recommendation dated October 24, 2012, Magistrate Judge Kemp
correctly determined that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which this Court can
grant relief. This Court agrees that “the subject matter of Mr. Arunga’s complaint – that a
presidential candidate is threatening to create an unconstitutional form of government – is simply
beyond the reach of the Court’s limited powers.” (Doc. 3 at 3.) As the Magistrate Judge points
out, “[i]ntervention into the midst of a political campaign for the purpose of disqualifying
candidates based on an alleged threat to impose unconstitutional mob rule if elected is not a
traditional function of the American courts.” (Id.) The Magistrate Judge correctly determined

that “this complaint simply presents no justiciable issue which a court can resolve.
Consequently, it should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2).” (Id. at 4.)
Plaintiff filed objections on November 5, 2012. (Doc. 5.) In his objections, Plaintiff
states that the Report and Recommendation is “based upon the pretense of 28:1915.e.2, [is]
unlearned, uneducated, frivolous finagling and spurious actions as, similarly, novel theories of
contortions, repugnant to Law of the Land.” He goes on to state that, “[a]ccordingly,” the Report
and Recommendation is “summarily, objected, on constitutional merits.” (Doc. 5 at 2.) Plaintiff
fails to address the legal conclusions in the Report and Recommendation and provides no support
for his criticism of the conclusions set forth in the Report and Recommendation.
Because the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state
a claim upon which this Court can grant relief, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation (doc. 3) and DISMISSES this case. The Court directs the Clerk to enter
judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Peter C. Economus - November 6, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2