Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Michael Garcia, proceeding pro se, filed a Bivens action against President Donald Trump alleging violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as summarily listing “ADA violations,” “hate crimes,” “war crimes,” and “civil rights violations.” The complaint also contained the allegation that “the assassination [sic] of President Kennedy in 1962 has led to a dictator being put in the White House.” Garcia sought $500,000,000 in damages and requested that President Trump be “impeach[ed], persecuted [sic], and imprisoned.” Garcia filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2).
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge granted Garcia’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but recommended that the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. The court held that President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity from civil suits predicated on official acts taken as President, citing Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). Because Garcia’s claims center on actions President Trump has taken in his official capacity, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The court further determined that leave to amend would be futile because the complaint lacks merit entirely, citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000). The court noted that since June 2026, Garcia has filed at least 20 actions in the Eastern District of California. The Findings and Recommendations were submitted to the assigned District Judge for final disposition, with notice that any party may file written objections within fourteen days.
Key Takeaways
- The President of the United States possesses absolute immunity from civil damages liability for official acts performed while in office (Nixon v. Fitzgerald).
- A pro se complaint alleging constitutional violations against the President based on official acts fails to state a claim and is subject to mandatory screening dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
- Leave to amend need not be granted where a complaint lacks merit entirely and amendment would be futile (Lopez v. Smith).
- The court may take judicial notice of a plaintiff’s extensive litigation history in the same district as context for screening determinations.
- Magistrate Judge findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) require de novo review by the district judge upon timely objection.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the application of presidential absolute immunity doctrine at the screening stage of an in forma pauperis proceeding. The court applied Nixon v. Fitzgerald to dismiss a pro se Bivens action against a sitting President based on official acts without requiring the defendant to appear or answer. The decision also demonstrates the interplay between liberal construction of pro se pleadings and the plausibility standard under Twombly and Iqbal, concluding that even under liberal construction, claims barred by absolute immunity cannot proceed.
The court’s notation of the plaintiff’s extensive filing history (20+ cases since June 2026) signals awareness of potential vexatious litigation patterns, though no pre-filing injunction was sought or imposed in this screening order. The ruling remained a recommendation rather than a final dismissal: the assigned district judge retained authority to accept, reject, or modify it after the fourteen-day objection period. It also did not order impeachment, prosecution, imprisonment, sanctions, or a filing restriction. Its operative conclusions were limited to granting pauper status and recommending dismissal of this complaint without leave to amend because the pleaded official-act damages theory was barred.