Fontanez v. Trump

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: July 13, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2026-1687
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FERNANDO FONTANEZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 26-1687 (UNA) ) PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on an application from Fernando Fontanez to proceed in

forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), a pro se complaint (ECF No. 2), and motions to appoint counsel

(ECF No. 3) and for CM/ECF password (ECF No. 4). The Court grants the application, dismisses

the complaint, and denies the motions without prejudice as moot.

“Article III of the United States Constitution limits the judicial power to deciding ‘Cases

and Controversies.’” In re Navy Chaplaincy, 534 F.3d 756, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting U.S.

Const. art. III, § 2), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1167 (2009). “One element of the case-or-controversy

requirement is that plaintiffs must establish that they have standing to sue.” Comm. on Judiciary

of U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, 968 F.3d 755, 762 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted). A party has standing for purposes of Article III if he has “(1)

suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant,

and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id. at 763 (quoting Lujan v.

Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)).

1 Plaintiff expresses his thoughts about this nation’s budget deficit, see generally Compl.

(ECF No. 1), and opines that “an immediate financial catastrophe causing huge losses and

escalating prices for goods,” id. at 3, if the United States were to default on its debts, see id. at 3

(page numbers designated by CM/ECF). The complaint does not articulate an actual legal claim,

however, and its exhibits do not clarify matters. Insofar as Plaintiff claims to be harmed by the

budget deficit, he fails to allege an injury particular to him. At most, Plaintiff raises “only a

generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s

interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, 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.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573–74); see Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975)

(explaining that where “the asserted harm is a ‘generalized grievance’ shared in substantially equal

measure by . . . a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of

jurisdiction” (citation omitted)).

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2),

DISMISSES the complaint (ECF No. 1), and denies as moot the motions to appoint counsel (ECF

No. 3) and for CM/ECF password (ECF No. 4). An Order is issued separately.

RANDOLPH D. MOSS DATE: July 13, 2026 United States District Judge