TREVINO v. TRUMP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ERNEST C. TREVINO, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-03963 (UNA)
)
)
DONALD J. TRUMP, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint
(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The
Court grants the in forma pauperis Application, and as explained in more detail below, dismisses
this case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)
(requiring the court to dismiss an action “at any time” if it determines that the subject matter
jurisdiction is wanting).
Plaintiff, a resident of Pleasanton, Texas, sues the President of the United States. Compl.
at 1–4. He challenges “the damage and willful destruction of the east wing of the White House
with no permits, approval from any entity or approval of the American People for personal gain or
benefit.” Id. at 4. 	He seeks to enjoin any further demolition and construction, and asks for the
east wing to be “cordoned off” until he and the “American people” determine how to rebuild. See
id. at 5.
Accepting all of the allegations as true at this stage as obligated, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 669 (2009), Plaintiff has nonetheless failed to establish standing in this matter. Article
III of the Constitution, federal courts “may only adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies,” Honig
v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988), of which “the core component of standing is an essential and
Case 1:25-cv-03963-UNA Document 3 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 3

unchanging part[.]” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). To satisfy the standing
requirement, a plaintiff must establish at a minimum (1) that he has suffered an injury in fact—an
invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized; and (b) actual or
imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) that “a causal connection” exists “between the injury
and the conduct complained of and is not the result of the independent action of some third party
not before the court; and (3) that the injury will “likely” be redressed by a favorable decision. Id.
at 560–61 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted). As here, “a defect of
standing is a defect in subject matter jurisdiction.” Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C.
Cir. 1987).
Plaintiff does not allege a redressable injury that is particularized to himself. 	The
Complaint lacks any factual allegations showing that he sustained, or is likely to sustain, any direct
injury as a result of the operative events, which as pleaded, do not involve him personally. Insofar
as Plaintiff attempts to bring his case as an American citizen, or on behalf of other American
citizens, “a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about” the government or its
officials, “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.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573–
74; see Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975) (finding that where “the asserted harm is a
‘generalized grievance’ shared in substantially equal measure by . . . a large class of citizens, that
harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.”). Where, as here, a “[p]laintiff’s
stake is no greater and him status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters[,] . .
. his harm is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.” Berg
Case 1:25-cv-03963-UNA Document 3 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 3

v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509, 519 (E.D. Pa. 2008), aff'd, 586 F.3d 234 (3rd Cir. 2009), cert.
denied, 555 U.S. 1126 (2009).
Consequently, for all these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: 	March 9, 2026
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-03963-UNA Document 3 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 3