880 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2011Background
- Strunk filed an interpleader-typed complaint seeking to supplement Taitz v. Obama with additional claims and various relief.
- The court construes the pro se filing as a complaint because Rule 22 is inappropriate here and liberal construction applies.
- Standing is analyzed as threshold; plaintiff alleges generalized grievances without a concrete, particularized injury.
- Plaintiff asserts claims concerning presidential eligibility, federal fraud, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment, all challenged for lack of standing or failure to state a claim.
- The court dismisses the complaint without prejudice for lack of standing and failure to state a claim; Rule 12(b)(6) analysis applied.
- A July 10, 2012 letter was treated as a motion to amend; the motion was denied as frivolous and the amended complaint rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 22 applies to Strunk’s filing | Strunk seeks interpleader to supplement a separate case. | Rule 22 not proper; plaintiff not a proper interpleader party. | Rule 22 not proper; construed as a complaint. |
| Whether Strunk has Article III standing | Injury as a voter/public interest in eligibility claims. | Injury is generalized; no concrete, particularized injury or redressable harm. | Lacks standing; dismissal warranted. |
| Whether the federal claims survive Rule 12(b)(6) | Federal claims and remedies exist via interpleader and other actions. | No valid federal claim; standing not satisfied; no basis for jurisdiction over replevin. | Failure to state a claim; no federal basis to proceed. |
| Whether §1971 conspiracy and §1985 conspiracy claims are viable | Conspiratorial actions by President to affect elections and funding. | No standing; claims lack particularized injury and proper statutory basis. | Lacks standing; claims dismissed. |
| Whether amendment of the complaint should be allowed | Amendment would cure deficiencies and add claims. | Amendment would be frivolous and duplicative; no standing remains. | Amendment denied; amended complaint frivolous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. Supreme Court 1972) (pro se filings receive liberal construction)
- Richardson v. United States, 193 F.3d 545 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (liberal pleading standards for pro se actions)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. Supreme Court 1992) (three-part standing test)
- Raytheon Co. v. Ashburn Agencies, Ltd., 372 F.3d 451 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (standing as threshold requirement)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. Supreme Court 1998) (standing and jurisdictional analysis central to dismissal)
- Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (U.S. Supreme Court 1968) ( taxpayer standing limitations)
- United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (U.S. Supreme Court 1966) (federal jurisdiction over state claims requires common nucleus)
- Baker v. Dir., U.S. Parole Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (sua sponte dismissal for lack of basis)
- Perry v. Discover Bank, 2010 WL 724705 (D.D.C. 2010) (frivolous pro se complaint; lack of proper relief)
- Dorsey v. District of Columbia, 747 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 2010) (standing requirements applied to pro se plaintiffs)