FONTANEZ v. VOUGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FERNANDO FONTANEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
RUSSELL VOUGHT,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 25 - 4539 (UNA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff Fernando Fontanez brings this action against Office of
Management and Budget Director Russel Vought. ECF No. 1. He has also filed a supplement to
his complaint and additional documents, ECF Nos. 5, 7, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis,
ECF No. 2, a motion for a CM/ECF password, ECF No. 3, and a motion to appoint counsel, ECF
No. 4. The court will grant Mr. Fontanez’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss his
complaint and this case without prejudice, and deny his remaining motions as moot.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” and it is generally presumed that “a cause
lies outside [of] this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994). Accordingly, “a district court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte prior to service
on the defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) when, as here, it is evident that the court
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.” Evans v. Suter, No. 09-5242, 2010 WL 1632902, at *1
(D.C. Cir. Apr. 2, 2010) (per curiam); see Page v. Trump, No. 24-CV-670, 2024 WL 3534752,
at *1 (D.D.C. July 25, 2024); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time
that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). “A dispute does not
Case 1:25-cv-04539-UNA Document 7 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 3

2
fall within the subject-matter jurisdiction of federal courts unless it qualifies as a ‘case’ or
‘controversy’ within the meaning of article III, and it cannot so qualify unless the plaintiff has
suffered ‘injury in fact.’” Ananiev v. Freitas, 37 F. Supp. 3d 297, 305 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting
Nat’l Ass’n of Recycling Indus., Inc. v. Sec’y of Com., 494 F. Supp. 158, 160 (D.D.C. 1980)).
Article III standing is comprised of three elements: “(1) the plaintiff must have suffered an
‘injury in fact’ that is ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical’; (2) there must exist ‘a causal connection between the injury and the conduct
complained of’; and (3) it must be ‘likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be
redressed by a favorable decision.’” Friends of Animals v. Jewell, 828 F.3d 989, 991-92 (D.C. Cir.
2016) (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)).
Plaintiffs’ complaint expresses a variety of concerns about the United States’ political and
economic affairs, including the United States’ national debt and nuclear war. ECF No. 1, at 1. But
he fails to allege that Defendant Vought’s conduct injures him in particular. A plaintiff “must
demonstrate ‘a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy’” to have Article III standing.
Hall v. D.C. Bd. of Elections, 141 F.4th 200, 205 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (quoting Gill v. Whitford, 585
U.S. 48, 65 (2018)). “Absent any allegations to suggest [Mr. Fontanez] ha[s] some ‘particularized
stake in the litigation,’ this suit presents ‘precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized
grievance’ . . . that federal courts may not hear.” Davis v. D.C. Dep’t of Corr., No. 25-CV-1895,
2025 WL 1743940, at *1 (D.D.C. June 24, 2025) (quoting Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 442
(2007)). Instead, a “general interest common to all members of the public” is properly resolved
through the political process rather than the judicial process. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 575 (quoting Ex
parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937) (per curiam)). Because Mr. Fontanez has failed to
demonstrate that he has suffered an “actual or imminent” injury that is “concrete and
Case 1:25-cv-04539-UNA Document 7 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 3

3
particularized” to him, this court must dismiss his case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
pursuant.
The court will accordingly grant Mr. Fontanez’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF
No. 2, and dismiss his complaint, ECF No. 1, and the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The court will also deny as moot his motions for CM/ECF password, ECF No. 3, and to appoint
counsel, ECF No. 4. A contemporaneous order will issue.
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
United States District Judge
Date: February 9, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-04539-UNA Document 7 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 3