UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. HAROLD WILLIAM VAN ALLEN JOHN JAY AND DONALD J TRUMP “BIRTHERS” FEDERAL JUDICIARY ACT PROJECT Plaintiff v No. 16-cv-1426 (KBJ) DONALD J TRUMP, PRESIDENT-ELECT and MICHAEL R PENCE VP-ELECT and HON JOHN ROBERTS, SCOTUS CHIEF JUSTICE and USDC-DCD/USCA-DCC CIRCUIT JUSTICE and USDC-DCD USDJ HON. KETANII BROWN JACKSON and US REPRESENTATIVE NY-19 CHRISTOPHER PATRICK “CHRIS” GIBSON, COL, USA (RET) in his Official Capacities as both US Congressional Representative and Retired Senior Officer USA Defendant MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF USDC DCD 16-CV-1426 DATED NOVEMBER 22, 2016 ORDER DISMISSING CASE ~ MOTION ADDING AS NAMED DEFENDANT THE ASSIGNED USDJ KETANJI BROWN JACKSON -- IN A NEW QUO WARRANTO ACTION -- REGARDING HER (KBJ) AND CLASS OF ALL SIMILARY SITUATED FEDERAL JUDIARY PUBLIC OFFICER NOMINEES OF AKA BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA and MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT 16-CV-1426 ADDING PLAINTIFFS, DEFENDANTS, AND INTERESTED PARTIES DONALD J. TRUMP and MICHAEL R. PENCE BORN TO ‘TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS AT A LOCATION UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ALONG WITH OTHERS WITH DIRECT INTEREST IN US CONSTITUTION SECTION 1 OF ARTICLE ‘TWO FIRST SCOTUS CHIEF JUSTICE AND SUBJECT OF JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 JOHN JAY AND PRESIDENT ELECT DONALD J TRUMP ~ NATURALBORN GATIZEN “1 a YZ 4AROLD WILLIAM VAN ALLE! STOR NEW YORK STATE, and IRTHER” FEDERAL JUDIARY ACT PROJECT, and Date: November 27, 2016 PEROT 1996 ELECTORAL COLLEGE El JOHN JAY AND DONALD J. TRUMP. TRUMP NOTARY PROJECT, and NATURAL BORN CITIZEN PARTY, NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ‘Address: PO BOX 312, HURLEY, NY 12443 TRUMPNOTARYPROJECT.ORG 351 NORTH ROAD, HURLEY, NY 12443 HVANALLEN@HVC.RR.COM JPMIL MULTI-DISTRICT JUDICIAL PANEL LITIGATION ARTICLE II! COURTS ~ CIRCUIT and DISTRICT COURTS. QUO WARRANTO AUTORITY OF ALL BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA FEDERAL JUDICIARY NOMINEESCase 1:16-cv-01426-KBJ Document 2 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAROLD WILLIAM VAN ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. No. 16-cv-1426 (KBJ) US REPRESENTATIVE NY-19 CHRISTOPHER PATRICK “CHRIS” GIBSON, COL., USA (RET) in his Official Capacities as both US Congressional Representative and Retired Senior Military Officer USA, Defendant. ORDER DISMISSING CASE For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. ‘This is a final, appealable order. See Fed. R. App. P.4(a). Date: November 22, 2016 Kaonji Brown KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District JudgeCase 1:16-cv-01426-KBJ Document 3 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAROLD WILLIAM VAN ALLEN, Plaintiff, No. 16-cv-1426 (KBJ) US REPRESENTATIVE NY-19 CHRISTOPHER PATRICK “CHRIS” GIBSON, COL., USA (RET) in his Official Capacities as both US Congressional Representative and Retired Senior Military Officer USA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Pro se plaintiff Harold William Van Allen (“Plaintiff”) jated the instant lawsuit against U.S. Representative Christopher Gibson on July 7, 2016. (See ECF No. 1, at 1.)! Plaintiff's initial filing consists of a cover sheet with the caption of this case and Plaintiff's signature; it contains no substantive text. (/d.) Attached to this one- page document is a copy of a PACER listing of various cases that that Plaintiff has filed in this jurisdiction over the past four years, followed by a 560-page compendium of documents that appears to be comprised of a legal brief and other filings in a matter before the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. (/d.) The legal brief is entitled “Notice Under FRAP 35 to Reconsider En Banc For A More Definite Decision To Dismiss Including The Alternative Transfer To The Co-Equal Supreme Page numbers herein refer to those that the Court's electronic case-filing system automat assigns.Case 1:16-cv-01426-KBJ Document 3 1d 11/22/16 Page 2 of 3 Court Of the United States On Non Military Matters.” (Id. at 2 (referencing case number 16-0413-OP).) This Court has reviewed Plaintiff's filing, and there no allegations of fact or any statement of a claim, nor has Plaintiff made any request for relief from this Court. ‘Thus, Plaintiff has failed to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, and as result, the Court will DISMISS this matter sua sponte. See Hurt v. U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Cireuit Banc, 264 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“It was proper for the district court to analyze its own jurisdiction sua sponte and dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.”) (citation omitted). Di ssion Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing “only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishi g the contrary rests upon the [plaintiff].” Id. (citation omitted). Further, when a claim is “*so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit[,]’” a federal court is without power to entertain that claim: Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (quoting Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904); accord Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“A complaint may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds when it ‘patently insubstantial,” presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 P.3d 328, 330 (D.C. 1994))). In the instant case, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to establish the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, even under the “less stringent standards” toCase 1:16-cv-01426-KBJ Document 3 Filed 11/22/16 Page 3 of 3 which federal courts hold pro se litigants. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). To the extent that Plaintiff's filing ean even be construed to constitute a “complaint,” it is silent on the factual and legal underpinnings of any claim that Plaintiff might have against Representative Gibson, and thus, entirely devoid of any grounds on which this Court can exercise of jurisdiction over Plaintiff's case. What is more, Plaintiff fails to articulate what relief he seeks from this Court, let alone establish that any such relief is within this Court's power to award. Conclusion Because Plaintiff's complaint presents no federal question suitable for decision and indeed is devoid of any factual allegations whatsoever, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, and as set forth in the accompanying Order, this case will be DISMISSED. Date: November 22, 2016 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge