Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
STRUNK v CENSUS - 22.1 - MOTION to Dismiss by STATES OF CALIFORNIA (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant State of California's Motion to Dismiss - gov.uscourts.dcd.137509.22.1

STRUNK v CENSUS - 22.1 - MOTION to Dismiss by STATES OF CALIFORNIA (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant State of California's Motion to Dismiss - gov.uscourts.dcd.137509.22.1

Ratings: (0)|Views: 288|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan

More info:

Published by: Jack Ryan on Sep 29, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/22/2010

pdf

text

original

 
1IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THEDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,
Plaintiff,
v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFCOMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS,
et al.
,
Defendants.Case No. 09-cv-01295 (RJL)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OFDEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S MOTION TO DISMISSINTRODUCTION
Defendant State of California moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint onseveral grounds: (1) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(1)because the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars claimsagainst the State of California, because Plaintiff lacks standing to bring his claim, andbecause this Court lacks jurisdiction over the bizarre conspiracy theories alleged in theComplaint; (2) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction over the State of California; and (3) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. For any or all of thesereasons, Plaintiff’s claims against the State of California should be dismissed.
 
2
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
The Complaint names the State of California and numerous other municipal,state, and federal defendants, as well as some private Jesuit organizations. Althoughthe allegations of the Complaint are vague and very difficult to discern, Plaintiff appears to allege a vast nationwide conspiracy to count tourists in the 2010 census,and conjectures that this may dilute his vote in Congress. Plaintiff asks for injunctiveand declaratory relief, as well as five trillion dollars in damages. (Complaint, pages29-30.)With respect to California, Plaintiff appears to allege that California will gain arepresentative in Congress if tourists are counted in the census, based on charts of unspecified origin. (
 Id 
., ¶¶ 57, 60; exhibits B-E.) However, in other parts of theComplaint Plaintiff appears to allege California will lose a representative. (
 Id 
., ¶¶ 67,85.) Plaintiff also alleges that California is in a partnership with Texas “as a result of arbitrary and capricious disproportionately using tourists to enlarge its Aristocracy’svoice in Congress for which otherwise it is not reasonably entitled to under INA andthe law of the land.” (
 Id 
., ¶ 68.) Plaintiff also mentions that the California Governoris in a similar arrangement with the President. (
 Id 
., ¶ 69.) Plaintiff alleges violationsof numerous federal constitutional provisions (
id 
., ¶ 1) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985and 1986. (
 Id 
., ¶ 2.)
 
3
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
This motion is brought pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1),12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) authorizes dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Rule 12(b)(2) authorizes dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Rule12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal for the failure to state a claim upon which relief can begranted.Under Rule 12(b)(1), a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by apreponderance of the evidence that the court possesses jurisdiction.
Shekoyan v.Sibley Int'l Corp.,
217 F. Supp. 2d 59, 63 (D.D.C. 2002). “[I]n deciding a Rule12(b)(1) motion . . . a court is not limited to the allegations in the complaint, but mayalso consider material outside of the pleadings in its effort to determine whether thecourt has jurisdiction in the case.”
 Alliance For Democracy v. Federal ElectionCom'n
, 362 F. Supp. 2d 138, 142 (D.D.C. 2005).Under Rule 12(b)(2), “[p]laintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over each individual defendant.”
 Atlantigas Corp. v. Nisource, Inc
., 290F. Supp. 2d 34, 42 (D.D.C. 2003). “In order to meet its burden, plaintiff must allegespecific facts on which personal jurisdiction can be based; it cannot rely onconclusory allegations.”
 Id 
. “Moreover, plaintiff cannot aggregate factual allegationsconcerning multiple defendants in order to demonstrate personal jurisdiction over anyindividual defendant.”
 Id 
.

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
mhlegal liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->