(PS) Wooten v. Trump

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT WOOTEN, No. 2:25-cv-00873-DC-AC (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DONALD J. TRUMP, (Doc. Nos. 1, 7, 8, 15) 15 Defendant.

16 17 Plaintiff Robert Wooten is proceeding pro se in this civil action. This matter was referred 18 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On March 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint and a motion for temporary restraining 20 order and preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendant Donald J. Trump, and any parties associated 21 with him, “from further issuing, enforcing, aiding, or in any manner continuing” executive orders 22 until a judicial determination has been made regarding the constitutionality of their usage. (Doc. 23 No. 1.) On March 18, 2025, the undersigned referred Plaintiff’s motion to the assigned magistrate 24 judge for the issuance of findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 6.) On April 1, 2025, Plaintiff 25 filed a first amended complaint and an amended motion for temporary restraining order and 26 preliminary injunction requesting the same relief as in his original motion. (Doc. Nos. 7, 8.) 27 On April 23, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 28 recommending that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 15.) 1 Specifically, the magistrate judge found that “Plaintiff does not identify any basis for standing,” 2 the operative first amended complaint “lacks any information that could possibly go to standing,” 3 and Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the political question doctrine. (Id. at 3–5.) The findings and 4 recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 5 to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service. (Id. at 5.) 6 Plaintiff did not file a document titled “Objections to the Findings and 7 Recommendations.” But on May 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “motion to alter or amend judgment” 8 (Doc. No. 16), which the court construes as his objections. Therein, Plaintiff contends the 9 magistrate judge’s recommendations should be altered and/or amended because he has a First 10 Amendment right to petition the government. (Id.) The court finds Plaintiff’s contention to be 11 frivolous. The Petition Clause of the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law . . 12 . abridging . . . the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 13 U.S. Const. amend. I. This right to petition the government for a redress of grievances includes 14 the right to file suit in a court of law. See Bill Johnson’s Rests., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 461 U.S. 731, 15 741 (1983) (“[W]e recognize that the right of access to the courts is an aspect of the First 16 Amendment right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”). However, the right of 17 access to the courts does not exist in an “abstract, freestanding” form. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 18 F.3d 1237, 1244 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996)). Instead, the 19 right is “tethered to principles of Article III standing.” Blaisdell, 729 F.3d at 1244. 20 Article III standing is a “bedrock requirement” of the court’s jurisdiction, Raines v. Byrd, 21 521 U.S. 811, 818 (1997), and a litigant must demonstrate standing “to challenge the action 22 sought to be adjudicated in the lawsuit.” Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for 23 Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). Further, the Supreme Court has 24 explained that the “standing inquiry” should be “especially rigorous” if reaching the merits of the 25 case “would force [the court] to decide whether an action taken by one of the other two branches 26 of the Federal Government was unconstitutional.” Raines, 521 U.S. at 819–20. As already 27 addressed in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, Plaintiff has not alleged 28 sufficient facts to demonstrate he has standing to bring his claims in this action. (Doc. No. 15 at 1 | 4.) Thus, the magistrate judge correctly concluded that this court does not have subject-matter 2 | jurisdiction over this action. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 4 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's 5 | objections, the court concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record 6 | and by proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 23, 2025 (Doc. No. 15) are 9 ADOPTED in full; 10 2. Plaintiff's amended motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary 11 injunction (Doc. Nos. 1, 7) is DENIED; 12 3. Plaintiff's first amended complaint (Doc. No. 8) is DISMISSED for lack of subject 13 matter jurisdiction; and 14 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 17 | Dated: _June 24, 2025 RUC Dena Coggins 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28