Judy v. Obama et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 14 Motion for Service of Process. It is further ordered that Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants are dismissed. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 10/7/2014. (blh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CODY ROBERT JUDY,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS

Plaintiff,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA a.k.a.
BARRY SOETORO; DEMOCRATIC
NATIONAL COMMITTEE; and
ORGANIZATION FOR ACTION et al.,

Case No. 1:14-CV-93 TS
District Judge Ted Stewart

Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Service of Process. 1

Plaintiff

Cody Judy is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed with the
Court on July 10, 2014. 2 On September 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, leading the
Court to now screen Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a court must screen cases filed in forma pauperis and
must “dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal (i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”
The United States Supreme Court has construed the meaning of the term “frivolous”
within the context of the in forma pauperis statute, holding that “a complaint, containing as it

1

Docket No. 14.

2

Docket No. 3.

1

does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or fact.” 3 The statute “accords judges . . . the unusual power to pierce the veil of
the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly
baseless.” 4 Examples of baseless factual contentions are those that describe “fantastic or
delusional scenarios.” 5 “[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts
alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” 6
Additionally, the Tenth Circuit has provided the following guidance for evaluating
whether an in forma pauperis complaint states a claim for relief:
“Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it
is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would
be futile to give him an opportunity to amend.” “In determining whether a
dismissal is proper, we must accept the allegations of the complaint as true and
construe those allegations, and any reasonable inferences that might be drawn
from them, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” 7
We apply the same standard of review for dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
that we employ for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss
for failure to state a claim. . . . In the Rule 12(b)(6) context, “[w]e look for
plausibility in th[e] complaint.” In particular, we “look to the specific allegations
in the complaint to determine whether they plausibly support a legal claim for
relief.” Rather than adjudging whether a claim is “improbable,” “[f]actual
allegations [in a complaint] must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” 8

3

Neizke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

4

Id. at 327.

5

Id. at 328.

6

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

7

Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d
1278, 1281 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation omitted); Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222,
1224 (10th Cir. 2002)).
8

Id. at 1217–18 (quoting Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 & n.2 (10th
Cir. 2007); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

2

“In addition, we must construe a pro se appellant’s complaint liberally.” This
liberal treatment is not without limits, and “this court has repeatedly insisted that
pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” 9
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s Complaint names as Defendants “Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro –
Organization for Action”; “Barack Obama – As Candidate Barack Obama also occupying the
Office of the President illegally”; the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”); Mitch Stewart,
Director of the DNC; Jeremy Bird, Deputy Director of the DNC; Debbie Wasserman Shultz,
National Chair of the DNC; Jim Dabaki, Utah Chair of the DNC; Matt Lyon, Utah Executive
Director of the DNC; Representative Nancy Pelosi; and Senator Harry Reid.
Plaintiff’s suit centers on Plaintiff’s allegation that President Obama is not a natural-born
citizen eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. Based on this allegation,
Plaintiff asserts that the DNC and President Obama’s campaign conspired to defraud donors and
voters which in turn injured Plaintiff’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns by forcing Plaintiff
to compete unfairly against a candidate who allegedly fails to meet the qualifications of the
office.
Plaintiff first asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on alleged violations of
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleges that he was “prejudiced and discriminated
against by the Defendant(s) who have in their political activity violated [Plaintiff’s] rights by

9

Id. at 1218 (quoting Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d at 1224 (10th Cir. 2002); Garrett v.
Selby, Connor, Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation
omitted)).

3

violating, mooting, or disregarding the qualifications for the Office of the President.” 10 Plaintiff
explains that this suit is
an action of liability based on the Candidate Barack Hussein Obama’s violation
that he knew or should have known in his “Candidates Oath” put forth to the
various Secretaries of States in the Union, that stated should he be elected he
could meet the qualifications for the Office for which he was putting himself up
for election. 11
Plaintiff seeks only monetary relief for this claim—$40,000,000 in compensatory and punitive
damages.
Second, Plaintiff asserts a claim under the Sherman Act, based on “what amounts to . . . a
tying affect termed exclusive dealing arrangements.” 12 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are an
“illegal cartel forming a monopoly violating anti-trust laws, based on the violations of
identification fraud for the Office of the President and putting forth a candidate that they knew or
should have known was not qualified for the Office.” 13 Plaintiff again seeks monetary relief for
this claim—$100,000,000 in statutorily defined damages. Plaintiff also seeks relief in the form
of a court order initiating criminal prosecution against the Defendants for the alleged Sherman
Act violations.
After carefully reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s suit is
frivolous. Plaintiff’s claims lack an arguable basis in law or fact and Plaintiff’s factual
allegations border on the irrational and wholly incredible. Moreover, the suit could not survive a
motion to dismiss because Plaintiff’s claims rest on conclusory statements rather than factual
10

Docket No. 3, at 2.

11

Id.

12

Id. at 3.

13

Id.

4

allegations that plausibly state a claim for relief. Finally, most of the relief sought by Plaintiff is
money damages. Many of the defendants in this case would almost certainly be immune from
such relief. And it is not clear that the remaining defendants would not also enjoy the same
immunity. Based on the foregoing, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims.
IV. CONCLUSION
It is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Service of Process (Docket No. 14) is DENIED. It
is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants are DISMISSED. The Clerk of
the Court is directed to close this case forthwith.
DATED this 7th day of October, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

5