Hunter v. Graham
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:22-cv-00773
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Hunter v. Graham, Judge Wright dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denied two motions as moot.
Michael Hunter’s action was dismissed without prejudice because he did not establish standing. His application to proceed without paying filing fees and his motion to appoint Liz Cheney as a guardian ad litem were denied as moot. The court did not reach the merits of his allegations against the respondents.
What happened
Michael Hunter asked the court to order audits of members of Congress, require certain congressional actions, protect voting rights, and declare a federal tax law invalid. He also sought other orders concerning election-related statements.
The court said Hunter had not shown that he personally suffered a specific injury. Instead, his allegations presented general complaints about government conduct shared by the public. Without a personal injury, Hunter did not have standing to sue.
In Hunter v. Graham, Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright ruled that the court lacked authority to hear the case and dismissed it without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also denied Hunter’s request to proceed without paying filing fees and his request to appoint Liz Cheney as a guardian ad litem as moot.
The detailed version
- Hunter v. Graham · No. 0:22-cv-00773
- Wilhelmina Wright
- May 9, 2022
Background
Michael Hunter filed a petition seeking a mandatory injunction against Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, Mitch McConnell, 148 unnamed members of Congress, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas, and Donald J. Trump. The petition alleged that some members of Congress were corrupt, that Congress improperly passed or failed to pass legislation during different presidential administrations, and that certain government officials had encouraged division.
Hunter asked the court to order the Internal Revenue Service to audit numerous members of Congress; require certain members of Congress to disqualify themselves and vote for President Biden’s proposed Build Back Better Law; compel a vote on a bill concerning federal voting and mail rights; and require deputy United States marshals at every polling site in the country. He also sought a declaration that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 was void and orders concerning claims about the 2020 election.
Court’s Analysis
Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to deciding actual cases or controversies. To establish standing—the legal requirement that a person has a sufficient personal stake in a case—a plaintiff must show a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.
The court concluded that Hunter had not alleged facts showing that he personally suffered such an injury. Instead, he presented generalized grievances about the government and its officials. Because Hunter lacked standing, the court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the action.
Disposition
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright ordered that the action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also DENIED AS MOOT Hunter’s application to proceed without paying filing fees and his motion to appoint Liz Cheney as a guardian ad litem. The opinion does not decide whether Hunter’s underlying allegations or requested injunctions were legally justified.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.