Penny v. Pelosi
| Citation | 538 F.Supp.3d 850 |
| Decision Date | 10 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-CV-2047 |
| Parties | David Harold PENNY, Plaintiff, v. Nancy PELOSI, United States Representative, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois |
David Harold Penny, Buckley, IL, Pro Se.
David H. Hoff, US Atty, Urbana, IL, for Defendants Nancy Pelosi, Adam B. Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Alma Adams, Pete Aguilar, Colin Allred, Cindy Axne, Nanette Barragan, Karen Bass, Joyce Beatty, Ami Bera, Don Beyer, Lisa Blunt Rochester, Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., Earl Blumenauer, Suzanne Bonamici, Brendan F. Boyle, Anthony Brindisi, Anthony Brown, Julia Brownley, Cheri Bustos, G. K. Butterfiled, Salud Carbajal, Tony Cardenas, Andre Carson, Matt Cartwright, Ed Case, Sean Casten, Kathy Castor, Joaquin Castro, Judy Chu, David Cicilline, Gil Cisneros, Katherine M. Clark, Yvette D. Clarke, William Lacy Clay, Emauel Cleaver, II, James E. Clyburn, Steve Cohen, Gerald E. Connolly, Jim Cooper, J. Luis Correa, Jim Costa, Joe Courtney, TJ Cox, Angie Craig, Charlie Crist, Jason Crow, Henry Cuellar, Joe Cunningham, Sharice Davids, Susan A. Davis, Danny K. Davis, Madeleine Dean, Peter A. Defazio, Diana DeGette, Rosa DeLauro, Suzan DelBene, Antonio Delgado, Val Demings, Mark DeSaulnier, Ted Deutch, Debbie Dingell, Lloyd Doggett, Mike Doyle, Veronia=ca Escobar, Anna G. Eshoo, Adriano Espaillat, Dwight Evans, Abby Finkenauer, Lizzie Fletcher, Bill Foster, Lois Frankel, Marcia L. Fudge, Ruben Gallego, John Garamendi, Jesus Garcia, Sylvia Garcia, Jared Golden, Jimmy Gomez, Vicente Gonzalez, Josh Gottheimer, Al Green, Raul M. Grijalva, Deb Haaland, Josh Harder, Alcee L. Hastings, Jahana Hayes, Denny Heck, Brian Higgins, Jim Himes, Kendra Horn, Steven Horsford, Chrissy Houlahan, Steny H. Hoyer, Jared Huffman, Sheila Jackson Lee, Pramila Jayapal, Hakeem Jeffries, Hank Johnson, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Marcy Kaptur, William Keating, Robin Kelley, Ro Khanna, Dan Kildee, Derek Kilmer, Andy Kim, Ron Kind, Ann Kirkpatrick, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Ann McLane Kuster, Conor Lamb, Jim Langevin, Rick Larsen, John B. Larson, Brenda Lawrence, Al Lawson, Barbara Lee, Susie Lee, Mike Levin, Andy Levin, Ted Lieu, Daniel Lipinski, Dave Loebsack, Zoe Lofgren, Alan Lowenthal, Nita M. Lowey, Ben Ray Lujan, Elaine Luria, Stephen F. Lynch, Tom Malinowski, Carolyn B. Maloney, Sean Patrick Maloney, Doris Matsui, Ben McAdams, Lucy McBath, Betty McCollum, A. Donald McEachin, Jim McGovern, Jerry McNerney, Gregory W. Meeks, Grace Meng, Gwen Moore, Joseph D. Morelle, Seth Moulton, Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, Stephanie Murphy, Joe Neguse, Grace F. Napolitano, Richard E. Neal, Donald Norcross, Tom O'Halleran, Ilhan Omar, Frank Pallone, Jr., Jimmy Panetta, Chris Pappas, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Donald M. Payne, Jr., Ed Perlmutter, Scott Peters, Dean Phillips, Chellie Pingree, Mark Pocan, Katie Porter, Ayanna S. Pressley, David E. Price, Mike Quigley, Jamie Raskin, Kathleen Rice, Cedric L. Richmond, Max Rose, Harley Rouda, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Raul Ruiz, Dutch Ruppersberger, Bobby L. Rush, Tim Ryan, Linda T. Sanchez, John Sarbanes, Mary Gay Scanlon, Jan Schakowski, Brad Schneider, Kurt Schrader, Kim Schrier, Robert C. Scott, Terri A. Sewell, Donna E. Shalala, Brad Sherman, Mikie Sherrill, Albio Sires, Elissa Slotkin, Adam Smith, Darren Soto, Abigail Spanberger, Jackie Speier, Greg Stanton, Haley Stevens, Tom Suozzi, Eric Swalwell, Mark Takano, Bennie Thompson, Mike Thompson, Dina Titus, Rashida Tlaib, Paul Tonko, Norma J. Torres, Xochitl Torrres Small, Lori Trahan, Justin Amash, David Trone, Lauren Underwood, Juan C. Vargas, Marc Veasey, Filemon Vela, Nydia M. Velaquez, Peter J. Visclosky, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Maxine Waters, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Peter Welch, Jennifer Wexton, Susan Wild, Frederica S. Wilson, John Yarmuth.
Pro se Plaintiff David Harold Penny filed a Complaint (#1) on February 27, 2020, against Defendants Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and all the members of the House of Representatives Democratic caucus who voted in favor of impeaching former U.S. President Donald J. Trump on December 18, 2019, on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress charges concerning Trump's dealings with Ukraine and attempt to influence the 2020 U.S. presidential election by requesting Ukraine investigate potential Democratic nominee for president Joseph R. Biden in exchange for U.S. military aid.
Plaintiff states as the basis for his Complaint conspiracy to defraud the United States, defrauding the government of money or property, obstructing a legitimate government activity, treason, rebellion or insurrection, seditious conspiracy, and advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated the U.S. Constitution by voting to impeach the president when the president had not committed a crime.
Plaintiff states:
Each of the individual defendants in their voting for, participation in, proceedings, processes, procedures, in the submission of invalid, illegal, unconstitutional, and unfounded Articles of Impeachment against President Donald J. Trump, and funding of these activities using tax payer money to remove the President in a political coup, attempting to nullify my vote, and all votes cast for President Trump: through these unprecedented acts their misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance violated the cited sections of the Constitution, federal criminal statutes, and their oaths.
Plaintiff, in later filings, clarified that he is bringing his claims against Defendants in both their official and individual capacities. In his original Complaint, in terms of requested relief, Plaintiff asked the court to imprison some, not all, of Defendants, along with fines, and to bar some Defendants from running for office for 10 years, while others could be barred for 5 years. In his Response (#23) to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff clarifies that he requests only that Defendants be barred from running for election for 10 years, starting with the completion of their current term.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (#19) on December 2, 2020, to which Plaintiff filed his Response (#23) on February 12, 2021. Defendants filed a Reply (#26) on March 12, 2021, and Plaintiff filed a Sur-Reply (#27) on March 26, 2021. The matter is now fully briefed. In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice for the following reasons: (1) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the Speech or Clause of the U.S. Constitution deprives this court of subject matter jurisdiction to consider this Complaint; (2) under the Political Question Doctrine, Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to sue these individual members of Congress for their legislative actions taken as members of Congress, and thus this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) ; (3) under Rule 12(b)(6), the Complaint fails to state a valid cause of action because it is barred by sovereign immunity, which protects members of Congress from complaints like Plaintiff's; (4) there is no legal precedent that recognizes a cause of action against members of Congress because Plaintiff is dissatisfied with their performance and participation in the impeachment of President Trump; and (5) the Complaint is frivolous.
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint under both Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "When a motion to dismiss is based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), as well as other Rule 12(b)(6) defenses, the court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) challenge first." Rizzi v. Calumet City , 11 F.Supp.2d 994, 995 (N.D. Ill. 1998), citing Bell v. Hood , 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946) ; In re Stirlen , 614 B.R. 837, 849 (Bank. N.D. Ill. 2020). If the court dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the accompanying Rule 12(b)(6) defenses become moot and need not be addressed. See Rizzi , 11 F.Supp.2d at 995.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) contends that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's Complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). "Motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) are meant to test the sufficiency of the complaint, not to decide the merits of the case," and "[i]n the context of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, [the court] accept[s] as true the well pleaded factual allegations, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff[.]" Center for Dermatology & Skin Cancer, Ltd. v. Burwell , 770 F.3d 586, 588 (7th Cir. 2014). However, "a plaintiff faced with a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss bears the burden of establishing that the jurisdictional requirements have been met." Burwell , 770 F.3d at 588-89.
Further, the district court may properly look beyond the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and view whatever evidence has been submitted on the issue to determine whether in fact subject matter jurisdiction exists. Evers v. Astrue , 536 F.3d 651, 656-57 (7th Cir. 2008). "When subject-matter jurisdiction—which is to say, the power to hear and decide the case at all—is at stake, a district judge may resolve factual disputes and make any findings necessary to determine the court's adjudicatory competence." Craftwood II, Inc. v. Generac Power Systems, Inc. , 920 F.3d 479, 481 (7th Cir. 2019).
Defendants first argue that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Complaint because it is barred by the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff responds that the Speech or Debate Clause does not protect Defendants because they "did not conduct legitimate legislative activity when they illegally and unconstitutionally voted for the impeachment of President...
To continue reading
Request your trial