Obama Citizenship

Hunter v. Obama: TX Case Dismissed on Failure of Claim, Jurisdiction

By Phil

Darrel Reece Hunter of Amarillo, TX, on January 16, 2009 received a response as Plaintiff pro se in Hunter v. Obama where he filed in US District Court against Defendants US Supreme Court, Barack H. Obama, John McCain, Democratic National Committee, Republican National Committee, House, Senate, Electoral College, District of Columbia, the Federal Election Commission, and George H. W. Bush.

This case was dismissed based on the following:

For all the reasons set forth above and pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, section 1915(e)(2), it is the conclusion of the United
States District Judge that the Complaint filed by plaintiff DARREL REECE HUNTER should be, and hereby is, DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED AND FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

The entire Memorandum of Opinion and Order from District Judge Mary Lou Robinson follows…

This decision was reviewed by West editorial staff and not assigned
editorial enhancements.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division.
Darrel Reece HUNTER, pro se, Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. SUPREME COURT, Barack H. Obama, John McCain, Democratic Nat.com.,
Republican Nat.com., U.S. Congress-House, U.S. Congress-Senate, U.S.
Electoral College (All 50 U.S. States), District of Columbia, Federal
Election Comm. George H.W. Bush, Defendants.
No. 2:08-CV-0232.

Jan. 16, 2009.

Darrel Reece Hunter, Amarillo, TX, pro se.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

MARY LOU ROBINSON, District Judge.
*1 Plaintiff DARREL REECE HUNTER, acting pro se and proceeding in
forma pauperis, has filed suit complaining against the
above-referenced defendants and has been granted permission to proceed
in forma pauperis. On January 9, 2009, the Court issued an Order
identifying     various deficiencies and giving plaintiff until 4:00 p.m.
of January 19, 2009, in which to respond and show cause why this case
should not be dismissed. Plaintiff filed his response on January 15,
2009.

In light of plaintiff’s pauper status, the Court is required to screen
his complaint and dismiss it without service of process at any time
the Court makes a determination of any of the factors set forth in
Title 28, United States Code, section 1915(e)(2). The District Judge
has reviewed plaintiff’s pleadings and has viewed the facts alleged by
plaintiff to determine if his claim presents grounds for dismissal or
should proceed to answer by defendants.

To the extent plaintiff requests that this Court require any action by
the U.S. SUPREME COURT, this Court does not have authority to do so.

As noted in the show cause order, plaintiff does not allege any cause
of action against the remaining defendants, although he does request
relief involving those defendants FN1. By his January 15, 2009
response, plaintiff does not cure this defect and, therefore, has
failed to state a claim against these defendants on which relief can
be granted.

FN1. Plaintiff also claims he has “been denied due to the lack of
adequate money” which prevents him from paying the filing fee and
hiring an attorney. Plaintiff does not state exactly what he has been
denied. Plaintiff has been allowed to represent himself and proceed in
forma pauperis in this Court and, therefore, has not been denied
access to the courts by lack of funds.

Additionally, having been alerted to the issue of standing by the
Court’s show cause order, plaintiff has utterly failed to show he has
standing to sue for the relief he requests. To demonstrate standing, a
party must show (1) he has suffered an injury in fact; (2) which has a
causal connection to the defendant’s conduct; and (3) that a favorable
decision would be likely to redress the complained of injury. Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d
351 (1992). An injury in fact must be “(a) concrete and particularized
and (b) actual or imminent, nor conjectural or hypothetical.”Id.

To show injury, plaintiff claims he was on the presidential primary
ballot in one state and has filed with the FEC as a replacement
candidate. Plaintiff does not plead he received a significant number
of votes in that primary and does not state how he could have become
the presidential nominee based upon the primary in a single state.
Plaintiff appears to concede this point in his Response where he
argues that “Hillary Clinton would most likely have been the DNC
Presidential nominee, but who is to say [plaintiff] would not have
been the VP for Clinton?”Plaintiff then references a May 23, 2000
letter from then-President Bill Clinton and a December 28, 2000 letter
from then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton thanking him for his
letters to them. Nothing about these letters indicates any possibility
that plaintiff could have been chosen or even considered as a running
mate had Hillary Rodham Clinton been a nominee in the 2008
presidential campaign. Plaintiff’s claim of harm fails because it is
“conjectural or hypothetical,” leaving plaintiff without standing to
sue for the requested relief.

*2 Plaintiff’s failure to show standing leaves this Court without
jurisdiction to consider this case and the case must be dismissed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

Conclusion

For all the reasons set forth above and pursuant to Title 28, United
States Code, section 1915(e)(2), it is the conclusion of the United
States District Judge that the Complaint filed by plaintiff DARREL
REECE HUNTER should be, and hereby is, DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE
A CLAIM ON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED AND FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

N.D.Tex.,2009.
Hunter v. U.S. Supreme Court
Slip Copy, 2009 WL 111683 (N.D.Tex.)

END OF DOCUMENT

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on January 27, 2009 (boomark / email).