Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00693/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00693-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sharon Hodges; and Frank Hodges,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Barak Obama, President of the United 

States; and John Boehner, Speaker of the 

House, United States Congress, 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-693-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 

 Plaintiffs have filed a pro se complaint against President Barack Obama and 

Speaker of the House John Boehner. The complaint purports to assert a negligence claim 

and a violation of executive privilege, and seeks an emergency restraining order 

prohibiting a shutdown of the federal government. Doc. 1. The case has been assigned 

to Judge James Teilborg, but he is not available to hear the request for emergency relief. 

The undersigned Judge has been randomly selected to consider Plaintiffs’ request. For 

reasons stated below, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ request for an emergency restraining 

order. 

 To obtain an emergency restraining order, a plaintiff must show that he is likely 

to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence 

of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction 

is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 

Case 2:11-cv-00693-JAT Document 4 Filed 04/08/11 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

374 (2008). The test includes a sliding scale. If the plaintiff shows that the balance of 

hardships will tip sharply in his favor, he need not make as strong a showing of the 

likelihood of success on the merits – the existence of serious questions will suffice. 

Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049-53 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiffs 

have not shown they are likely to succeed on the merits or that they have raised serious 

questions. 

 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. “They possess only that power 

authorized by Constitution and statute,” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of 

America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), and “the presumption is that [they are] without 

jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears[,]” Fifty Associates. v. Prudential 

Insurance Co. of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1970). The complaint asserts 

only that that “[j]urisdiction for matters involving questions of Executive Privilege lay 

with Federal Courts” (Doc. 1 at 1), but cites no supporting legal authority other than 

Article III of the United States Constitution. 

 To sue in federal court, a plaintiff must have standing under Article III, that is, the 

plaintiff “must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the 

defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Lewis v. Cont’l 

Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). The complaint, even when construed liberally in 

Plaintiffs’ favor, alleges no facts showing that Plaintiffs will suffer an actual, concrete 

injury as a result of a government shutdown. Plaintiffs’ claims implicate only a 

“generalized interest of all citizens” in efficient and effective governance. Schlesinger v. 

Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 218 (1974). Plaintiffs, therefore, have 

failed to establish constitutional standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 

555, 560-61 (1992) (the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of 

establishing the three elements of constitutional standing). 

 Nor may the Court exercise jurisdiction over this suit given the principle of 

separation of powers and the political question doctrine. “Plaintiffs’ action cannot 

Case 2:11-cv-00693-JAT Document 4 Filed 04/08/11 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

proceed because its resolution would require the federal judiciary to ask and answer 

questions that are committed by the Constitution to the political branches of our 

government.” Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 503 F.3d 974, 977 (9th Cir. 2007); see 

Schlesinger, 418 U.S. at 215 (presence of a political question, like absence of standing, 

deprives court of jurisdiction). 

 Plaintiffs note, correctly, that not even the President of the United States is above 

the law, see United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), and that it is the province and 

duty of the judicial branch to decide what the law is, Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 

2 L. Ed. 60 (1803). But the general failure of the President and Congress to agree upon a 

federal budget does not constitute a legal question subject to judicial review. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Petition for Emergency Restraining Order 

(Doc. 1) is denied. 

 Dated this 8th day of April, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-00693-JAT Document 4 Filed 04/08/11 Page 3 of 3