FREDERIC SCHULTZ V. JOHN ROBERTS, JR., No. 17-56852 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 26 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FREDERIC C. SCHULTZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-56852 D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00097-WQHKSC v. JOHN G. ROBERTS, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States; DONALD J. TRUMP, MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. 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). 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 17-56852
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
