Taitz v. Obama, 754 F. Supp. 2d 57

Taitz filed a lawsuit seeking a writ of quo warranto to determine the President's eligibility for office.
The court previously dismissed the first amended complaint on April 14, 2010.
On June 18, 2010, the court denied Taitz's first amended motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e).
Taitz filed a second motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b).
The court denies the motion, addressing arguments on quo warranto, FOIA, standing, honest services, Commerce Clause, and related theories

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b) relief is warranted for the quo warranto claims	Keyes/Lightfoot have standing; reconsideration warranted	Keyes/Lightfoot lack standing; amendment futile	Denied
Whether Rule 60(b) relief is warranted for FOIA claims	Requests misinterpreted; FOIA Exemption not applicable	Claims fail due to failure to exhaust and privacy exemptions	Denied
Whether new evidence supports standing	Sanction letter and new naming information establish injury	Sanction does not create causation/redressability; no new standing	Denied
Whether a new honest services claim is viable under Rule 60(b)	Sanction-related conduct constitutes deprivation of honest services	No basis to raise new claim under 60(b)	Denied

Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (only the Attorney General may bring quo warranto against public officials)
United States v. Carmody, 148 F.2d 684 (D.C. Cir. 1945) (actions against public officials brought by private parties are improper)
Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 841 F.2d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (Rule 60(b) and extraordinary relief standards apply)
Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris, 636 F.2d 572 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (Rule 60(b)(6) relief limited to extraordinary circumstances)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires concrete injury and causation/redressability)