Sibley v. Obama
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78245
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- Plaintiff seeks to qualify as a write‑in candidate for U.S. President and targets Obama’s alleged birth status.
- Plaintiff sues Attorney General Holder, U.S. Attorney Machen, the DOJ, the U.S. Marshals Service, and two John Doe marshals.
- Plaintiff retailates claims that marshals chilled access to court, retaliated, and used excessive force during a courthouse visit.
- Plaintiff petitions for writs of quo warranto, mandamus, and declaratory relief to challenge Obama’s eligibility and to influence grand jury actions.
- Court denies most relief and grants defendants’ motion to dismiss; proceedings end without merits on standing or causes of action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge Obama’s presidency | Sibley has a personal, concrete stake in Obama’s tenure. | No particularized injury; generalized citizen interest insufficient. | Lacks Article III standing; dismiss |
| Viability of quo warranto to remove current or future president | Writ should determine Obama’s authority and eligibility. | DC Circuit limitations; public right protects through officials, not individuals. | No jurisdiction to grant quo warranto |
| Mandamus to compel officials to respond or act | Holder/Machen must answer request or initiate quo warranto. | Mandamus improper; no ministerial duty proven; no standing to enforce | Denies mandamus relief |
| Declaratory relief to communicate with grand jury | 18 U.S.C. § 1504 and Rule 6 violate First/Fifth Amendments by blocking petitioning the grand jury. | Grand jury independence and prosecutorial discretion foreclose direct contact. | Foreclosed; no right to direct grand jury contact |
| Damages for 2009 courthouse visit | Marshals violated rights; damages should follow. | No actual injury; security actions reasonable; no FTCA liability | Denied; no cognizable injury; no damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir.2010) (standing required for eligibility challenges)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing elements)
- Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (U.S. 1915) (injury must be to individual with interest in office)
- Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234 (3d Cir.2009) (standing/eligibility challenges affirmed limits)
- United States v. Carmody, 148 F.2d 684 (D.C.Cir.1945) (public-office challenges belong to public representatives)
- Sibley v. Obama, 819 F.Supp.2d 45 (D.D.C.2011) (prior denial of similar requests and discovery)
- In re New Haven Grand Jury, 604 F.Supp. 453 (D.Conn.1985) (grand jury independence; no right to compel presentment)