1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JESUS CHRIST, Case No. 22-cv-02402-WHO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 9 v. RECOMMENDATION

10 DONALD TRUMP, Re: Dkt. No. 5 Defendant. 11

12 13 On April 20, 2022, Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero issued a Report and 14 Recommendation, recommending that the complaint filed by plaintiff Jesus Christ, also known as 15 Michelle Yvonne Wood, against defendant Donald Trump be dismissed without leave to amend. 16 R. & R. [Dkt. No. 5] 1:13–17. Plaintiff filed an objection on April 27, 2022. See Dkt. No. 8. 17 Having reviewed the record in this case, I agree with Judge Spero’s Report and 18 Recommendation and adopt it in full. Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by res judicata, as it is based 19 on the same alleged conduct as in plaintiff’s previous case against defendant, which Judge 20 Chhabria dismissed with prejudice. See Dkt. No. 1; see also Christ v. Trump, No. 21-CV-07140- 21 TSH,

, at *1 (Sept. 17, 2021), adopted by Christ v. Trump, No. 21-CV-07140- 22 VC,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2021). Her claims against defendant are also 23 barred by presidential immunity. And claims against Judges Chhabria and Hixson are barred by 24 judicial immunity. 25 Plaintiff contests the Report and Recommendation on the grounds that: (1) dismissal is 26 unconstitutional because it “allows judges to deliver not guilty verdicts . . . without the consent of 27 a jury”; (2) plaintiff was denied her First Amendment right to speak in court; (3) presidential 1 || judge—must determine the validity of claims. See Obj. to R. & R. [Dkt. No. 8] at 2-3. The first 2 || two objections overlap with arguments raised in the previous complaint. The other objections are 3 equally deficient. 4 First, plaintiff argues that her claims against defendant are not barred by presidential 5 immunity. See id. at 3. I again agree with Judge Spero. See R. & R. at 5:6-7. Defendant has 6 || “absolute presidential immunity from damages liability for acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his 7 official responsibility.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald,

(1982). Because plaintiff's claims 8 appear to be based on defendant’s actions as president, they are barred by this immunity. 9 Second, plaintiff argues that it is improper for a judge to determine the validity of claims. 10 || See Obj.toR. & R. at 2. It is the court’s responsibility to evaluate the sufficiency of a complaint 11 and determine whether a plaintiffs claim may proceed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; see also Ashcroft v. 12 || Igbal,

(2009). Judge Spero acted well within his authority in reviewing 5 13 || plaintiffs claims and recommending that they be dismissed. 14 This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 Dated: May 6, 2022

18 liam H. Orrick 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28