Kimberley V. Kelly v. Donald Trump

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 25-1034 PA (AS) Date May 27, 2025

Title Kimberley V. Kelly v. Donald Trump, et al.,

Present: The Honorable Alka Sagar, United States Magistrate Judge

Alma Felix N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant:

N/A N/A

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On February 6, 2025, Kimberley V. Kelly (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a paid Complaint

against President Donald Trump and Vice-President J.D. Vance. (Docket No. 1 (“Complaint”)). The

Complaint alleges Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021, and since that time he and Vance

“have given aid and comfort to the insurrectionists[,]” by, among other things, Trump issuing pardons for

convicted insurrectionists. (Complaint at 1-2). Plaintiff asserts that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids

Trump and Vance from holding office, and she demands their removal from office. (Complaint at 2).

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

Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.

Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted); Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013). “It

is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the

contrary rests upon the party asserting Jurisdiction[.]” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 (citations omitted); see

also Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo Cnty., 863 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) (‘The party asserting

Jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.’” (citation omitted)). “Ifthe court

determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) (“Without

jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when

it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the

cause.’” (citation omitted)).

“Article Il, § 2, of the Constitution confines federal courts to the decision of ‘Cases’ or

‘Controversies.’” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64 (1997); Wittman v.

Personhuballah, 578 U.S. 539, 543 (2016). “This restriction requires a party invoking a federal court’s

jurisdiction to demonstrate standing.” Wittman, 578 U.S. at 543; Bank of Am. Corp. v. City of Miami, Fla.,

581 U.S. 189, 196 (2017); see also Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard

Coll., 600 U.S. 181, 199 (2023) (“To state a case or controversy under Article III, a plaintiff must establish

standing.’” (quoting Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 133 (2011))).

Cv-90(10/088).. ~~~ □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ MENT ES-GENERAL □ ——~——.. Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 25-1034 PA (AS) Date May 27, 2025

Title Kimberley V. Kelly v. Donald Trump, et al.,

“In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of

the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975); see also Kowalski v.

Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 128-29 (2004) (“The doctrine of standing asks whether a litigant is entitled to have

a federal court resolve his grievance.”). “[T]he ‘irreducible constitutional minimum’ of standing consists

of three elements.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)); Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. 279, 285 (2021). “The plaintiff

must have (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.” Spokeo, Inc., 578 U.S. at 338;

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 423 (2021). “The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the

burden of establishing these elements.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561; Spokeo, Inc., 578 U.S. at 338. “Where, as

here, a case is at the pleading stage, the plaintiff must ‘clearly... allege facts demonstrating’ each element.”

Spokeo, Inc., 578 U.S. at 338 (quoting Warth, 422 U.S. at 518). Plaintiff has not done so.

Among other issues, Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating she sustained any injury in fact.

Indeed, the Complaint does not contain any information about Plaintiff. Instead, it asserts a generalized

grievance — that the President and Vice-President are ineligible to hold their offices. But “a litigant’s

standing cannot be based on the ‘generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance.’” City of

S. Lake Tahoe v. Cal. Tahoe Reg’! Plan, Agency, 625 F.2d 231, 237 (9th Cir. 1980) (quoting Schlesinger

v. Reservists to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 217 (1974)); see also Lujan, 504 U:S. at 573-74 (A “plaintiff

raising 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.”);

Drake v, Obama, 664 F.3d 774, 779-84 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissing for lack of standing claims from multiple

categories of plaintiffs that former President Barack Obama was constitutionally ineligible to be President

of the United States); Sibley v. Obama, 866 F. Supp. 2d 17, 20 (D. D.C. 2012) (“A generalized interest of

all citizens in constitutional governance does not suffice to confer standing on one such citizen.”), affirmed

by, 2012 WL 6603088 (D.C. Cir. 2012); Caplan v. Trump, 2023 WL 6627515, *2 (S.D. Fla. 2023) (“[A]n

individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individual is qualified to hold public

office.”).

Additionally, the political question doctrine “excludes from judicial review those controversies

which revolve around policy choices and value determinations constitutionally committed for resolution to

the halls of Congress or the confines of the Executive Branch.” Japan Whaling Ass’n v. Am. Cetacean

Soc’y, 478 U.S. 221, 230 (1986). The doctrine “is primarily a function of the separation of powers[,|” Baker

v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210 (1962), that “reflects the foundational precept, central to our form of government,

that federal courts decide only matters of law, with the elected branches setting the policies of our nation.”

Defense for Children Int’l-Palestine v. Biden, 107 F.4th 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2024). “[N]o justiciable

controversy is presented when the parties seek adjudication of only a political question[.]” Flast v. Cohen,

392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968); see also Defense for Children Int’l-Palestine, 107 F.4th at 930 (“Because [the

political question] doctrine embodies a limit on the powers of the judiciary, [the Courts] lack subject matter

CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 25-1034 PA (AS) Date May 27, 2025

Title Kimberley V. Kelly v. Donald Trump, et al.,

Jurisdiction to resolve claims that present political questions.”).

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that “[t]he President, Vice President and all civil

Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of,

Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. U.S. Const. art. II, § 4. “The United States

Supreme Court has held that the Constitution deliberately gave the power of impeachment to Congress, not

the Judiciary.” Carillo v. Trump, 2025 WL 986099, *3 (E.D. Cal.) (citing Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S.

224, 229, 233-35 (1993)), report and recommendation adopted by, 2025 WL 1424252 (E.D. Cal. 2025);

Patrick v. Trump, 2025 WL 897691, *2 (D. Or.), report and recommendation adopted by, 2025 WL 895393

(D. Or. 2025); see also Gray v. Hawaii Police Dep’t, 2024 WL 2304419, *2 (D. Haw. 2024) (The power of

impeachment set forth in Article II, Section 4 “rests exclusively with Congress.” (italics omitted)). Thus,

“(t]he question of whether the President and Vice President are fit for office and subject to removal is a

political question categorically excluded from judicial review.” Carillo, 2025 WL 986099 at *3; Patrick,

2025 WL 897691 at *2.

Given these limitations on the Court’s jurisdiction, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff

shall show good cause in writing, within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, as to why this action

should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter Jurisdiction. Alternatively, if Plaintiff does not wish to

proceed with this action, she may instead date, sign and return the attached dismissal notice by the foregoing

deadline. Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to comply with this Order to Show Cause and/or to

show good cause may result in the dismissal of this action for the reasons discussed herein and/or for

failure to comply with a Court Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

0 : 00

Initials of Preparer AF

CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 3 of 3