Bondurant v. La Follette et al

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 10/8/13 DISMISSING this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Further ordering that plaintiffs motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee 2 is DENIED as MOOT. Finally, ordering the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ROBERT A. BONDURANT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-C-1093

DOUG LA FOLLETTE, Secretary of State of
Wisconsin, and THE FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION,
Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER
The plaintiff, Robert A. Bondurant, filed a document with this court entitled “Petition,
Motion & Complaint Seeking to Over Turn the Presidential Elections of 2006 [sic] and
2012.”

He has since filed a document entitled “Amended Petition & Complaint to

Determine the Meaning of Natural-Born Citizen as is Defined by the U.S. Constitution.” In
these documents, plaintiff alleges that the Wisconsin Secretary of State and the Federal
Election Commission wrongfully certified Barack Obama as a candidate for president in
2008 and 2012 because he is not a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II,
section 1 of the United States Constitution. For relief, he seeks to have the court declare
the certifications void.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and I must examine newly filed
complaints to ensure that they properly allege federal jurisdiction. See Chase v. Shop n'
Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997); Wisconsin Knife Works
v. National Metal Crafter, 781 F.2d 1280, 1282 (7th Cir. 1986). In the present case, it is
obvious that this court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims because he does

not have standing to challenge the defendants’ certifications. To establish standing, a
plaintiff must show: (1) “an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which
is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical”; (2) “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained
of—the injury has to be fairly . . . traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and
not . . . the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court”; and
(3) “it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by
a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)
(omissions in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Moreover, a
litigant's interest cannot be based on the “generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional
governance.” Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 217
(1974); see also United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 173–78 (1974) (taxpayer's
generalized grievance insufficient for standing). Here, the plaintiff has suffered no concrete
and particularized invasion of his legally protected interests. Rather, his claim is founded
on the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional government. Therefore, the
plaintiff lacks standing to sue. Other courts that have considered claims alleging that
President Obama is not a natural-born citizen have likewise concluded that the plaintiffs’
bringing such claims lacked standing to sue. See, e.g., Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774,
779–84 (9th Cir. 2011); Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234, 237–42 (3d Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed without prepayment
of the filing fee is DENIED as MOOT.
Finally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter judgment.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 8th day of October, 2013.
s/ Lynn Adelman
_______________________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

3