Armando Rodriguez v. President Donald Trump

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 19, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02986
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 2:25-cv-2986-DC-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP,

15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff brings this action against President Donald Trump. The complaint’s allegations 18 fail to state a claim. I recommend that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 19 I will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, which makes the showing 20 required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). 21 Screening and Pleading Requirements 22 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 23 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 24 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 25 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 26 relief. Id. 27 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 1 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 2 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 3 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 4 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 5 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 6 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 7 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 8 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 9 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 10 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 11 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 12 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 13 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 14 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 15 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 16 Analysis 17 The complaint lodges numerous grievances against President Trump for actions he has 18 taken while in office. ECF No. 1. For example, plaintiff alleges that President Trump is using 19 the National Guard and taxpayer funds to pursue a personal vendetta. Id. at 13. He also alleges 20 that the President is not letting farm workers work or move to different states. Id. 21 The complaint fails to state a claim because President Trump is entitled to absolute 22 immunity for official actions he has taken in office. See Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 733 23 (1982) (explaining that The President of the United States of America has absolute immunity 24 from civil suits predicated on official acts taken as the President). Absolute immunity has been 25 “granted to ‘the President, judges, prosecutors, witnesses, and officials performing ‘quasi- 26 judicial’ functions, and legislators.’” Fry v. Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832, 836 (9th Cir. 1991) 27 (citation omitted). Plaintiff’s claims center on actions President Trump has taken in his official 28 capacity. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed because President Trump is immune from 1 | suit in this action. 2 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 3 | ECF No. 7, is GRANTED. 4 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 5 1. Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED without leave to amend. 6 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days of 9 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 10 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 11 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 12 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 13 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 14 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 15 1991). 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ December 19, 2025 Q_-——— 19 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28