Frederic C. Schultz v. JOHN G. ROBERTS, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States; DONALD J. TRUMP

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDERIC C. SCHULTZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN G. ROBERTS, Jr., Chief Justice of
the United States; DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-56852
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00097-WQH-
KSC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Frederic C. Schultz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging that the 2016 presidential election violated his
constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 26 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-56852
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Schultz’s action because Schultz failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible constitutional claim arising from the
election of President Trump by the electoral college. See U.S. Const. amend. XII
(providing for election of the president by electoral college); Gray v. Sanders, 372
U.S. 368, 380 (1963) (“The only weighing of votes sanctioned by the Constitution
concerns matters of representation, such as . . . the use of the electoral college in
the choice of a President.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --