Bruce Bannister v. State of Washington

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: May 18, 2026
• Docket: 4:26-cv-05020
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 May 18, 2026 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 BRUCE BANNISTER, NO. 4:26-CV-5020-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 9 v. PREJUDICE

10 STATE OF WASHINGTON,

11 Defendant. 12 BEFORE THE COURT are Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5), 13 Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 6), and Plaintiff’s Petition for 14 Writ of Quo Warranto (ECF No. 7). These matters were submitted for 15 consideration without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files 16 herein and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s Motion 17 to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint 18 (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto 19 (ECF No. 7) is DENIED. 20 1 BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his original Complaint on February 13,

3 2026. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleged that the State of Washington’s first legislative 4 session in 1889 was an unlawful act because it improperly defined the terms 5 “state” and “territory” to be interchangeable without the requisite enactment

6 clause. ECF No. 1. As a result, Plaintiff alleges Washington has persisted as a 7 territory rather than a state in violation of Article IV, Section 3 of the United States 8 Constitution. Id. at 8. 9 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state

10 a claim on March 6, 2026. ECF No. 5. In response, Plaintiff asserts that the claim 11 was meant to be brought under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution and now 12 moves to amend his complaint to correct the typo. ECF No. 6. Defendant argues

13 that even with the amendment, Plaintiff still fails to state a claim. ECF No. 8. 14 DISCUSSION 15 As an initial matter, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to amend his 16 Complaint. An amended complaint ordinarily renders a pending motion to dismiss

17 moot unless the amended complaint is substantially identical to the original. 18 Zimmerman v. PeaceHealth, 701 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1108 (W.D. Wash. 2023). The 19 Court finds Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is substantially identical to the original

20 as to not render Defendant’s motion to dismiss moot. 1 Defendant originally moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint under Federal 2 Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). However, in response to

3 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Defendant more heavily relies on a dismissal 4 under Rule 12(b)(1). ECF No. 8 at 2-3. 5 A. Rule 12(b)(1)

6 A court must dismiss a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) where “the 7 allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal 8 jurisdiction.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 9 2004). When analyzing a Rule (12)(b)(1) motion attacking the face of a complaint,

10 the Court accepts the material facts of the complaint as true. See, e.g., Wolfe v. 11 Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff bears the burden of 12 establishing that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. See

13 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 14 B. Analysis 15 Plaintiff’s claims are exclusively brought under Article IV, Section 4 16 (“Guarantee Clause”) of the Constitution which provides:

17 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against 18 Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. 19 Plaintiff contends that the State of Washington has been unlawfully 20 1 governed as a territory rather than a state in violation of the Guarantee Clause. 2 ECF No. 6 at 2. As a result, Plaintiff and the People of Washington have been

3 deprived of the right to self-govern. ECF No. 1 at 8. Plaintiff therefore asks the 4 Court to issue a writ of quo warranto requiring the “actors of the de-facto territorial 5 government of Washington to produce their authority to govern territorially as the

6 ‘State of Washington.’ ” Id. 7 Defendant argues that any claim premised under the Guarantee Clause is a 8 nonjusticiable political question requiring dismissal. ECF No. 8 at 3. Indeed, the 9 United States Supreme Court has repeatedly concluded “that the Guarantee Clause

10 does not provide the basis for a justiciable claim.” Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 11 U.S. 684, 718 (9th Cir. 2019); see also New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 12 184 (1992) (“[I]t rests with Congress, not the judiciary, to decide what government

13 is the established one in a State.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 14 As Plaintiff’s claims rest on the Guarantee Clause, they are nonjusticiable, 15 and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear them. Therefore, they must 16 be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).

17 Even if the claims were justiciable, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring a 18 petition for quo warranto in any event. “Quo warranto is an ancient writ used by 19 the King of England to determine if an individual's claim to an office or franchise

20 is well-founded.” Jesinger v. Nev. Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1131 n.5 (9th 1 Cir. 1994). “Under federal case law, it appears that a quo warranto proceeding can 2 be brought only by the United States, and not by private individuals.” Allah v.

3 Linde, No. C07-827, 2008 WL 1699441, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 4 2008) (citing Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 502 (1933)). Thus, 5 Plaintiff, as a private citizen, does not have standing to bring a petition for quo

6 warranto. 7 Plaintiff argues that as his claim rests on the argument that a territorial 8 government is unlawfully occupying the authority and venue of a state, only a state 9 would have standing to bring a petition for quo warranto. ECF No. 6 at 4.

10 Plaintiff further argues that because the actions of the territorial government have 11 precluded the ability of the State of Washington to exist, only the territory citizens 12 are left. Plaintiff therefore argues that a citizen may bring this action qui tam on

13 behalf of a sovereign. Id. 14 Plaintiff has not demonstrated a proper basis for federal jurisdiction over his 15 writ. Only the United States may bring a federal petition for quo warranto. 16 See Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 502 (1933). Plaintiff does not

17 cite to any case law or statute that supports his argument. Plaintiff’s petition is 18 denied and his complaint is dismissed. Additionally, because it is clear that even 19 liberally construing Plaintiff’s complaint, any defect cannot be cured by

20 amendment, the dismissal is with prejudice. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 1|| 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). 2|| ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED. 4 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's 5 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) is DISMISSED with prejudice. 6 3. Plaintiffs Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto (ECF No. 7) is DENIED. 7 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment 8 || accordingly, furnish copies to the parties, and close the file. 9 DATED May 18, 2026.

<> United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20