Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00410/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00410-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

2008 Official Presidential General Election Results, Federal Election Commission

(Jan. 22, 2009), available at http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Clark Hamblin, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Barack Obama; John S. McCain, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-cv-00410-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant McCain’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 18.) Because the

court does not have jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s complaint, the motion will be granted.

BACKGROUND

Defendants were the candidates for President of the United States offered by the two

largest political parties, and together received 98.6% of the popular votes cast and 100% of

the electoral votes.1

 Defendant Obama won the election and was sworn in as President.

(Doc. 4 at 12.) Plaintiff alleges that neither Defendant was eligible to hold the office of

President of the United States. (Doc. 4 passim.) Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants’ campaigns for the Presidency were predicated on fraudulent statements made

by Defendants. (Doc. 4 at 15.) Plaintiff alleges those campaigns abridged Plaintiff’s

Case 2:09-cv-00410-ROS Document 35 Filed 08/14/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

constitutionally-protected rights. (Doc. 4 at 14-16.) Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges Defendants

conspired to commit the fraud that abridged his rights. (Doc. 4 at 16-17.) Finally, Plaintiff

alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress resulting from Defendants’ fraudulent acts.

(Doc. 4 at 17-18.)

ANALYSIS

The Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts. U.S. Const. art. III § 2. One

such limit is that a federal court cannot adjudicate a controversy unless it is brought by a

party who has standing to sue. Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S.

208, 220 (1974). Standing to sue comes from having a sufficient stake in the controversy

being presented. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 731 (1972). But “standing to sue may

not be predicated upon an interest . . . held in common by all members of the public.”

Schlesinger, 418 U.S. at 220.

 Plaintiff’s alleged injuries flow from Plaintiff’s interest in voting for eligible

candidates for elected office. Plaintiff’s interest is held in common by all members of the

public. That common interest does not confer standing on Plaintiff. As a result, the Court

cannot adjudicate Plaintiff’s complaint, and the case must be dismissed in its entirety.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) is GRANTED.

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.

FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions (Docs. 11, 26, 31, 32) are

DISMISSED AS MOOT.

DATED this 13th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00410-ROS Document 35 Filed 08/14/09 Page 2 of 2