UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) MARK MARVIN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-03227 (UNA) ) DONALD TRUMP, ) ) Respondent. ) ___________________________________ )

Memorandum Opinion

This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

and his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. ECF Nos. 1, 2. Petitioner’s in forma pauperis

application is granted. For the reasons below, the petition is dismissed.

The petition seeks to challenge criminal charges brought against President Donald Trump.

ECF No. 1 at 1. As a general rule, a pro se litigant can represent only himself or herself in federal

court. See

(recognizing that “[i]n all courts of the United States the parties may

plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel”); Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona,

(D.C. Cir. 1984) (same); U.S. ex rel. Rockefeller v. Westinghouse Elec. Co.,

(D.D.C. 2003) (same), aff’d sub nom. Rockefeller ex rel. U.S. v. Washington TRU

Solutions LLC, No. 03-7120,

(D.C. Cir. Jan. 21, 2004). Petitioner cannot bring

this case on behalf of President Trump.

Petitioner also lacks standing to bring this case on his own behalf. “Article III of the

Constitution limits the judicial power to deciding ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” In re Navy

Chaplaincy,

(D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting U.S. Const. art. III, § 2). “One element of the case-or-controversy requirement is that plaintiffs must establish that they have standing to

sue.” Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn,

(D.C.

Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). A party has standing for purposes of Article III if

he has “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the

defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.”

at 763 (quoting

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,

(2016)). Here, the petition lacks sufficient factual

allegations showing that petitioner sustained (or is likely to sustain) any injury as a result of these

claims.

The Court notes that petitioner has unsuccessfully filed at least 17 other substantially

similar cases in this District. See, e.g., Marvin v. United States, No. 21-cv-02856 (UNA); Marvin

v. United States, No. 21-cv-02971 (UNA); Marvin v. United States, No. 21-cv-03129 (UNA);

Marvin v. United States, No. 21-cv-03408 (UNA); Marvin v. United States, No. 21-cv-01493

(UNA); Marvin v. United States, No. 21-cv-01872 (UNA); Marvin v. United States, No. 21-cv-

01948 (UNA); Marvin v. United States, No. 21-cv-02097 (UNA); Marvin v. United States, No.

21-cv-02956 (UNA); Marvin v. United States, No. 21-cv-02962 (UNA); Marvin v. United States,

No. 21-cv-03084 (UNA); Marvin v. United States, No. 22-cv-01117 (UNA); Marvin v. Crowl, No.

22-cv-00196 (UNA); Marvin v. United States, No. 22-cv-00389 (UNA); Marvin v. United States,

No. 22-cv-00789 (UNA); Marvin v. United States, No. 22-cv-00792 (UNA); Marvin v. United

States, No. 22-cv-01093 (UNA). Duplicative lawsuits filed by a petitioner proceeding in forma

pauperis are subject to dismissal as either frivolous or malicious under

(e).

Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, No. 09-0699,

, at *1 n.2 (D.D.C. April 16,

2009) (citing Risley v. Hawk,

(D.D.C. 1996), aff’d,

(D.C. Cir.

Mar. 05, 1997). Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. The

complaint, ECF No. 1, and this case are dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule 12(h)(3) and

(e)(2)(B)(i).

A separate order will issue with this memorandum opinion.

Date: January 31, 2025 /s/______________________ AMIR H. ALI United States District Judge