Fontanez v. Biden

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: January 12, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-3540
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FERNANDO FONTANEZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-03540 (UNA) ) ) JOE BIDEN et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter, filed pro se, is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s complaint,

ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will

grant the application and dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff, a resident of Washington, D.C., has filed a document captioned Petition to

Reimburse War on Terror to U.S. Government and U.S. Taxpayer After Private Oil Companies

Gleaned Billions in Profits of Iraqi Oil at Taxpayer Expense. The named defendants are President

Joe Biden and U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. Beyond the caption, the complaint is

incomprehensible. Regardless, the Supreme Court “has consistently held” that a plaintiff raising,

as here, “only a generally available grievance about government,” claiming no specific harm to

himself, and “seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public

at large does not state an Article III case or controversy” or establish Article III standing. Lujan

v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573-74 (1992); see DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547

U.S. 332, 342 (2006) (“The ‘core component’ of the requirement that a litigant have standing to

invoke the authority of a federal court ‘is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or- controversy requirement of Article III.’ ”) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). Consequently, this

case will be dismissed by separate order.

_________/s/______________ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER Date: January 12, 2024 United States District Judge