Pro Se Amicus Brief — East Bay Sanctuary v. Barr (N.D. Cal.)

Summary

A pro se amicus brief by Duane Morley Cox in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al. v. William Barr, Attorney General, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST, filed 08/02/19 as Document 53-1. Cox supports the defendants and argues that the Court must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which he reads as requiring a court to weigh harm to an individual against the good to the country before taking jurisdiction over a challenge to an act of the President or the administration. Only the first page of the ten-page brief has a text layer.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Duane Morley Cox
..
1199 Cliffside Dr.
^2 20J9
Logan, Utah 84321
susan y. <5^n^,
80'-"5-3578
'-ALlFOFil^l^
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et. al.
^^CEIVED
+
Case No.
Plaintiffs
+
+
Amicus BriefArguing
William Barr, Attorney General, in his
+
For
Official Capacity, et. al.
+
Dismissal For Lack Of Jurisdiction
+
Defendants
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOW COMES, Duane Morley Cox, Pro Se, and files this Amicus Brief in support of
Defendants which briefargues that this Court must Dismiss For Lack OfJurisdiction pursuant to
Nixon V. Fitzgerald.
Summary
1.
During the Nixon administration, an act by the Administration allegedly harmed a man
named Fitzgerald, who filed suit against Nixon. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized
that there would be times when an act of the Administrative Branch or the President himself
which was designed to operate for the good ofthe Country would intrude upon the rights of
individuals, and held that before a Court could take jurisdiction of such a case, it must be
determined ifthe harm to the individual was greater than the good to the country, and if not, then
the Court would have no Jurisdiction to hear the complaint of the injured party.
2.
The U.S. Supreme Court held:
"Held ... 2.(b) The President's absolute immunity is a functionally mandated incident of
Pgl
Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST   Document 53-1   Filed 08/02/19   Page 1 of 10

Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST   Document 53-1   Filed 08/02/19   Page 2 of 10

Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST   Document 53-1   Filed 08/02/19   Page 3 of 10

Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST   Document 53-1   Filed 08/02/19   Page 4 of 10

Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST   Document 53-1   Filed 08/02/19   Page 5 of 10

Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST   Document 53-1   Filed 08/02/19   Page 6 of 10

Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST   Document 53-1   Filed 08/02/19   Page 7 of 10

Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST   Document 53-1   Filed 08/02/19   Page 8 of 10

Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST   Document 53-1   Filed 08/02/19   Page 9 of 10

Case 4:19-cv-04073-JST   Document 53-1   Filed 08/02/19   Page 10 of 10

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.344869.53.1.pdf

Size

1,933,280 bytes

SHA-256

8c78823e708ceb241347b91bb26ab801a71483b7c79fc8456808f75d4c9866a6

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.344869.53.1.pdf

Original

archive.org