Case 3:24-cv-00040-ZNQ-TJB Document 123 Filed 11/26/24 Page 1 of 18 PageID:
`5669
`
`NOT FOR PUBLICATION
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`
`MARY BASILE LOGAN,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MERRICK GARLAND, in his official
`capacity as Attorney General, Department of
`Justice, et. al.1
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 24-00040 (ZNQ) (TJB)
`
`OPINION
`
`
`1 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint identifies the following additional Defendants, collectively with Merrick Garland,
`the “Defendants”: Llyod Austin III, in his official capacity as the Secretary, Department of Defense; William J. Burns,
`in his official capacity as the Director, Central Intelligence Agency; Christopher A. Wray, in his official capacity as
`the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Denis Richard McDonough, in his official Capacity as Secretary
`of Veterans Affairs; Alejandro Mayorkas, in his official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
`Marcia L. Fudge, in her former capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Robert
`Califf, in his capacity as Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration; William J. Clinton, in his official capacity as
`the Former President of the United States of America; Hillary R. Clinton, in her official capacity as Former Secretary
`of State for the United States of America; Thomas Kean, Sr., in his former capacity as Chairman 9/11 commission;
`Robert Mueller, in his former capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; James Comey, in his former
`capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Christopher J. Christie, in his capacity as the former-
`Governor of New Jersey; Richard “Dick” Cheney, in his former capacity as Vice President of the United States;
`Elizabeth “Liz” Cheney, in her former capacity as Chair, January 6 Commission; John Kerry, in his official capacity
`as U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate; George W. Bush, in his former capacity as President of the United
`States; Barack Hussein Obama, in his former capacity as President of the united states; Loretta Lynch, in her former
`capacity as United States Attorney General; James Baker, in his former capacity as White House Chief of Staff; Eric
`Holder, in his former capacity as United States Attorney General; Joseph R. Biden, in his official capacity as President,
`his former capacities as Vice President and Senator, of these United States; John Ashcroft, in his former official
`capacity, as United States Attorney General; Jamie Gorelick, in her official capacity, Homeland Security Advisory
`council member; Nancy Pelosi, in her official capacity as Congresswoman (CA);George Norcross, in his capacity as
`Chairman, Cooper University Medical Systems; Philip Murphy, in his official capacity as Governor of New Jersey,
`and as former Chair of the National Governors Association (NGA); Tahesha Way, in her former capacity as Secretary
`of State, as former President of the National Association of Secretaries of State, and her current capacity as Lt.
`Governor, New Jersey; Judith Persichilli, in her official capacity as then-Commissioner of Health for the State of New
`Jersey; Sejal Hathi, in her official capacity as Deputy Commissioner For Public Health Services; Matthew Platkin, in
`his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New Jersey; Kathy Hochul, in her official capacity as Governor
`of New York; Andrew Cuomo, in his former capacity as Governor of New York and his capacity as Vice-Chair of the
`National Governors Association; Letitia James, in her capacity as Attorney General of the State Of New York; Susan
`Rice, in her official capacity as United States Domestic Policy Advisor; Adam Schiff, in his official capacity as
`Congressman, of the State of California; Charles “Chuck” Schumer, in his official capacity as Senator for the State of
`New York; Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services; Janet Yellen, in her
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cv-00040-ZNQ-TJB Document 123 Filed 11/26/24 Page 2 of 18 PageID:
`5670
`
`
`QURAISHI, District Judge
`
`THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon nine Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
`
`Amended Complaint (“AC,” ECF Nos. 45, 46 & 55) filed by multiple Defendants in this case.
`
`(ECF Nos. 52, 53, 54, 56, 61, 72, 74, 76, 81).2 Pro se Plaintiff Mary Basille Logan (“Plaintiff”)
`
`appears to oppose the Motions as a whole, (ECF Nos. 57, 60, 69, 98, ), to which some Defendants
`
`replied, (ECF Nos. 62, 63).3 Plaintiff has also filed what the Court liberally construes as three
`
`motions for a preliminary injunction and/or restraining order with supplementary evidence. (ECF
`
`Nos. 73, 77, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108.) Defendants have opposed or otherwise responded, (ECF
`
`No. 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115) and Plaintiff replied, (ECF No. 116, 117).4
`
`The Court has carefully considered the parties’ submissions and decides the Motions
`
`without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Civil Rule 78.1.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss with
`
`prejudice. To the extent that some Defendants have not filed a responsive pleading, the Court will
`
`
`official [capacity] as Secretary of the United States Treasury; Rod Rosenstein, in his former capacity as United States
`Deputy Attorney General; Huma Abedin, in her former capacity as Vice Chair of Hillary Clinton; |Debbie Wasserman
`Schultz, in her current capacity as U.S. Representative, (FL-25); Bill Nelson, in his official capacity as administrator
`of NASA; Occidental Petroleum; United Healthcare; Democratic National Committee (“DNC”); Republican National
`Committee (“RNC”); James Pittinger, in his official capacity as Mayor of Lebanon Borough, State of New Jersey;
`Lisa Sella, in her official capacity as Deputy Clerk, Lebanon Borough, State Of New Jersey; Robert Junge, in his
`official capacity as Municipal Co-Chair, Republican Party, Lebanon Borough, State Of New Jersey; John Does (1-
`100), Jane Does (1-100).
`2 The following Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s AC: the RNC (ECF No. 52); jointly, Governor of
`New York Kathy Hochul and New York Attorney General Letitia James (the “NYS Defendants”) (ECF No. 53); the
`DNC (ECF No. 54.); Robert Junge (ECF No. 56); George E. Norcross, III (ECF No. 61); Debbie Wasserman Schultz
`in her capacity as the former head of the DNC (ECF No. 72); United HealthCare (“UHC”) (ECF No. 76); jointly,
`Christopher J. Christie, Philip D. Murphy, Tahesha Way, Judith Persichilli, Sejal Hathi, and Matthew Platkin (the
`“NJS Defendants”) (ECF No. 74); and jointly, James Pittinger and Lisa Sella (ECF No. 81).
`3 The Department of Justice (“DOJ”), submitted a letter to the Court on behalf of all former and current federal officials
`named in this suit in their official capacity (the “Federal Defendants”) contending they had not been properly served
`and were therefore not required to answer Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 75 at 1.) The DOJ also stated there was no
`personal jurisdiction in this Court over any of the Federal Defendants based on the lack of service. (Id.) Plaintiff has
`filed multiple letters with the Court and requests for extensions to serve the Federal Defendants. (ECF Nos. 100, 118)
`4 Plaintiff has submitted a variety of additional letters and with the Court. Where necessary, the Court liberally
`construed them as part of Plaintiff’s pleadings or otherwise considered their merits. (ECF Nos. 110, 119, 120, 121,
`122.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cv-00040-ZNQ-TJB Document 123 Filed 11/26/24 Page 3 of 18 PageID:
`5671
`
`sua sponte DISMISS all of Plaintiff’s remaining claims against all Defendants for lack of subject
`
`matter jurisdiction. The Court will DENY Plaintiff’s three motions for preliminary injunctions/
`
`restraining orders.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`On January 4, 2024, Plaintiff began the instant action by filing a Complaint with the Court.
`
`(“Complaint,” ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint with the Court on March 22,
`
`2023. (See AC.) Construed liberally, the Court understands Plaintiff to allege all Defendants are
`
`involved in a sprawling conspiracy to subvert American electoral processes and voting procedures,
`
`with an overall goal of allowing foreign influence into American elections and harming the
`
`American electorate. At the heart of her claims is alleged collusion and conspiracy by Defendants
`
`to, among other goals, injure President-elect Donald J. Trump and his family through strategic
`
`untruths, erase the boundaries between the branches of the U.S. federal government, and harm
`
`America by allowing the proliferation of crime and drug cartels. (AC at 4-7, 22-25, 29-32, 34-38,
`
`40-42, 50, 75, 87, 93, 95, 103.)5
`
`From the Court’s review of its docket, dating from the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has
`
`submitted approximately 1,020 pages of pleadings to the Court, totaling approximately 4,180
`
`pages when combined with supporting evidence.6 Much of the substance of the pleadings are
`
`recitations of theories and “facts” regarding major events in modern U.S. history, including the
`
`Covid-19 Pandemic, the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, and alleged foreign
`
`influence in U.S. politics dating from the mid-20th Century. (See generally ECF Nos. 45, 46, 55.)
`
`
`5 The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a related and similar lawsuit against an overlapping but not identical set of
`Defendants in this district last year, under Docket Number 23-21174. That case was voluntary dismissed on January
`2, 2024. (Dkt. No. 23-21174 at ECF No. 55.) The instant case was filed two days later. (ECF No. 1.)
`6 This tally excludes purely procedural communications with the Court on topics such as proper service or extensions
`to deadlines.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cv-00040-ZNQ-TJB Document 123 Filed 11/26/24 Page 4 of 18 PageID:
`5672
`
`The bulk of the attached evidence consists of publicly available documents and excerpted
`
`quotations from Congressional hearings. (See generally ECF No. 45.) A smaller portion of the
`
`evidence arises from Plaintiff’s relationship with an organization called the “Liberty Project,” of
`
`which Plaintiff is the Executive Director. (ECF No. 57-3.) Plaintiff attaches a report from the
`
`Liberty Project regarding election interference, as well as affidavits from researchers investigating
`
`election fraud and interference on behalf of the organization and on behalf of Plaintiff’s motion
`
`seeking a preliminary injunction regarding the November 5, 2024 election. (ECF Nos. 57-3, 73-
`
`1.)
`
`Based on the Court’s best understanding of the voluminous documents before it, Plaintiff
`
`appears to bring claims under: Article II, § 3.1 of the U.S. Constitution (the “Take Care” clause);
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1001, which prohibits federal employees from falsifying records; 18 U.S.C. §§ 2384,
`
`2385, prohibiting conspiracy to overthrow the government; and Article III § 3 of the U.S.
`
`Constitution, prohibiting treason. (Id. at 22, 124.) Plaintiff also refers to the First, Fifteenth, and
`
`Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and the USA Patriot Act.7 (Id. at 22.) She states
`
`that she seeks declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202.8
`
`In the section labeled “Remedy”, Plaintiff notes that she “received no compensation from
`
`this undertaking” and requests that the Court: (1) declare “Defendant’s actions as described herein
`
`set forth in paragraphs 2-5 above abridge and deny those rights and statutes enumerated in” the
`
`
`7 “The Patriot Act is officially titled the ‘Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required
`to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.’” Am. C.L. Union v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 321 F. Supp. 2d 24, 26
`(D.D.C. 2004) (citing Pub.L. No. 107–56, 115 Stat. 272 (Oct. 26, 2001)). Plaintiff does not specify what section of
`the Patriot Act she believes should apply to this action.
`8 In the section of her Amended Complaint titled “Prayer for Relief” Plaintiff writes that she “will not posture to
`political diatribe, seeking favor from no one presently holding office, her respect diminishing by the day of such
`parties” and that “on this occasion, the People seek the unvarnished truth and so as to corroborate advancing
`affirmation, God has demanded that the Plaintiff amass a repository of facts, for which she is obliged.” (AC at 123.)
`Plaintiff writes that in her AC she “gathers the honored voices and breath, the only measure which would have authored
`this document, unzipping the bags for the world to behold, the Defendant’s herein named . . . are responsible for these
`atrocities – no one else and most certainly not God, Almighty.” (Id.)
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cv-00040-ZNQ-TJB Document 123 Filed 11/26/24 Page 5 of 18 PageID:
`5673
`
`Take Care Clause, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2384, 2385; Art. III § 3, clause 1; (2) enjoin
`
`the Defendants from committing actions similar to those described in paragraphs 2-5; (3) award
`
`Plaintiff $8,000,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages for the “deprivation of the rights
`
`so infringed by corrupt practice”; (4) award Plaintiff attorney’s fees, costs, and disbursements
`
`incurred in this action; (5) place Donald Trump on the November 2023 ballot, (6) remove Joseph
`
`Biden as the “Executive of these United States”; (7) return all voting to in-person paper ballots on
`
`election day itself, eliminating early voting; (8) order all paper ballots to be hand counted; (9) end
`
`all relationships related to voting with computer companies making electronic ballots. (AC at
`
`124.)
`
`Active Defendants9 all move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6). (See generally the “MTDs,” ECF Nos. 52, 53, 54, 56,
`
`61, 72, 74, 76 & 81.)10 The MTDs uniformly argue the Court has no subject matter jurisdiction
`
`over this case and that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim, seeking dismissal under Rule 12(b).
`
`(See the MTDs.) More granularly, Defendants argue that: Plaintiff has no standing to bring this
`
`case, (see ECF Nos. 52, 54, 61, 72, 76, 81); that any claims are statutorily barred due to
`
`Defendants’ immunity, (see ECF Nos. 53, 72); that this Court does not have personal jurisdiction
`
`over the Defendants, (see ECF Nos. 53, 72 ); that the Court has no jurisdiction over frivolous
`
`lawsuits, (see ECF Nos. 52); that Plaintiff has violated Rule 8 (see ECF Nos. 54, 72, 74) and that
`
`Plaintiff fails to coherently articulate a claim or her prayer for relief under the law (see the MTDs).
`
`
`9 Excluding any Defendants who have not appeared in this case, including the Federal Defendants.
`10 While the Court will rely on arguments from the MTDs, it will not substantially quote each MTD individually as
`its analysis turns on legal theory common to all Defendants.
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cv-00040-ZNQ-TJB Document 123 Filed 11/26/24 Page 6 of 18 PageID:
`5674
`
`Even construed liberally, Plaintiff does not substantially oppose the MTDs. (See generally
`
`ECF Nos. 57, 60, 69, 78.) Plaintiff’s oppositions raise new claims and issues of law, and overall
`
`do not address the substantive bases for dismissal brought in the MTDs. (Id.)11
`
`In subsequent pleadings, Plaintiff filed what the Court construes as three separate motions
`
`for preliminary injunctions and/or restraining orders ostensibly related to her claims. (ECF Nos.
`
`73, 105, 107.)12 Plaintiff’s first motion for preliminary injunction appears to assert election
`
`interference from Defendants that would infringe on Plaintiff’s right to vote. (the “First
`
`Preliminary Injunction,” ECF No. 73 at 8.) Plaintiff’s second motion for preliminary injunction
`
`appears to seek a preliminary injunction on the basis that Defendants have committed crimes
`
`against humanity, treason, and civil rights violations including generalized election interference in
`
`relation to the U.S. federal election taking place on November 5, 2024. (the “Second Preliminary
`
`Injunction,” ECF No. 105 at 8.) Plaintiff’s also sent a letter stating she seeks a Restraining Order
`
`against Defendants James Pittinger, Lisa Sella and Robert Junge after Plaintiff received notice that
`
`she was in arrears on her property taxes and a letter from her mortgage holder stating the tax
`
`payment was rejected. (the “Third Preliminary Injunction,” ECF No. 107 at 1.)
`
`Defendants have opposed or otherwise responded, (ECF No. 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115)
`
`and Plaintiff replied. (ECF No. 116, 117.) In Plaintiff’s replies to Defendants’ oppositions and the
`
`
`11 Plaintiff’s oppositions seem to bring additional causes of action under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(A), 1961(C), 1961(D),
`1503, 1512, 2510-22, 2701-2702, and 17 U.S.C. § 1201. (See ECF No. By not including these claims in her opening
`brief, Plaintiff waived these arguments. See United States v. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197, 222 (3d Cir. 2005)); see also In
`re Radnor Holdings Corp., 528 B.R. 245, 251 (D. Del. 2014), aff’d, 629 F. App’x 277 (3d Cir. 2015) (“Because
`appellant failed to clearly raise the foregoing issue in his opening brief, the court need not consider the issue.”)
`Additionally, there is no right of action for individuals under Title 18 (18 U.S.C.), which are criminal statutes. These
`criminal statutes “do not allow independent civil claims for the simple reason that private citizens do not have
`‘authority to initiate a federal criminal prosecution; that power is vested exclusively in the executive branch.’” Livesay
`v. Murphy, Civ. No. 20-17947, 2022 WL 4597435, at *7 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2022) (quoting United States v. Nixon, 418
`U.S. 683, 693 (1974)).
`12 Plaintiff also filed a preliminary injunction at ECF No. 103 that is substantially similar to the one filed at ECF No.
`105. As Plaintiff appears to rely on the version submitted at ECF No. 105 in her subsequent filings, the Court will
`rely on it as well. (See ECF No. 116 at 1.)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cv-00040-ZNQ-TJB Document 123 Filed 11/26/24 Page 7 of 18 PageID:
`5675
`
`large volume of supporting documents she has filed with the Court, she does not articulate a legal
`
`basis for the Court to grant the injunctions/ restraining orders, or otherwise meaningfully reply to
`
`Defendants’ substantive arguments. (See generally ECF Nos. 116, 117.)
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution limits the “judicial power” of the United States to
`
`the resolution of certain “cases” and “controversies.” Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans
`
`United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). “The requirements of Art. III
`
`are not satisfied merely because a party requests a court of the United States to declare its legal
`
`rights, and has couched that request . . . in terms that have a familiar ring to those trained in the
`
`legal process.” Id. The “case” or “controversy” requirement is enforced through a number of
`
`justiciability doctrines, which include standing, ripeness, mootness, the political-question doctrine,
`
`and the prohibition on advisory opinions. Toll Bros., Inc. v. Twp. of Readington, 555 F.3d 131,
`
`137 (3d Cir. 2009).
`
`
`
`A case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a
`
`legally cognizable interest in the outcome. A.S. v. Harrison Twp. Bd. of Educ., 66 F. Supp. 3d 539,
`
`545 (D.N.J. 2014) (citing Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). In other words, “when
`
`it is no longer possible for this court to grant the relief requested, a case is moot and this court
`
`lacks jurisdiction to hear it.” Lazur v. Moser, Civ. No. 21-57, 2022 WL 2719473, at *1 (W.D. Pa.
`
`Mar. 11, 2022). The mootness doctrine requires that “an actual controversy [is] extant at all stages
`
`of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459
`
`n.10 (1974). “‘A case might become moot if subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the
`
`allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.’” Friends of the Earth,
`
`Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (quoting U.S. v. Concentrated Phosphate
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cv-00040-ZNQ-TJB Document 123 Filed 11/26/24 Page 8 of 18 PageID:
`5676
`
`Export Assn., 393 U.S. 199, 203 (1968)). Mootness may not become an issue until the case has
`
`been brought and litigated. Id. at 191.
`
`A federal court must address the question of mootness, even though it was not raised by
`
`the parties, because it implicates Article III jurisdiction, and thus, a Court may raise sua sponte the
`
`issue of whether a suit presents a live case or controversy. New Jersey Tpk. Auth. v. Jersey Cent.
`
`Power & Light, 772 F.2d 25, 30 (3d Cir. 1985); Luppino v. Mercedes Benz USA, 718 F. App’x
`
`143, 147 (3d Cir. 2017) (explaining that federal courts have a duty to determine mootness or
`
`abstract propositions, or to declare legal principles which cannot affect the ultimate issue in the
`
`case) (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)); Just In Time Chem. Sales & Mktg., Inc.
`
`v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., Civ. No. 13-7127, 2014 WL 3784264, at *1 (D.N.J. July 31, 2014)
`
`(“A court may sua sponte dismiss a case on grounds of mootness”).
`
`Similarly, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), a court must grant a motion to dismiss if it lacks
`
`subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). “A motion to dismiss for
`
`want of standing is . . . properly brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), because standing is a
`
`jurisdictional matter.” Behar v. Murphy, Civ. No. 20-5206, 2020 WL 6375707 at *2 (D.N.J. Oct.
`
`30, 2020); see also St. Thomas - St. John Hotel & Tourism Ass'n v. U.S. Virgin Islands, 218 F.3d
`
`232, 240 (3d Cir. 2000) (“The issue of standing is jurisdictional.”). “On a motion to dismiss for
`
`lack of standing, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the elements of standing, and each
`
`element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the
`
`burden of proof.” Ballentine v. United States, Civ. No. 99-130, 2006 WL3298270 at *3–4 (D.V.I.
`
`Sep. 21, 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). To show standing, a plaintiff must establish:
`
`“(1) an injury-in-fact, (2) a sufficient causal connection between the injury and the conduct
`
`complained of, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” In
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cv-00040-ZNQ-TJB Document 123 Filed 11/26/24 Page 9 of 18 PageID:
`5677
`
`re Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litig., 827 F.3d 262, 272 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Finkelman v.
`
`Nat'l Football League, 810 F.3d 187, 193 (3d Cir. 2016)).
`
`On a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a court presumes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and
`
`“the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v.
`
`Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted); see also Kehr
`
`Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406, 1409 (3d Cir. 1991) (when jurisdiction is
`
`challenged under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`A.
`
`THE ELECTION INJUNCTIONS
`
`1.
`
`The Election Related Preliminary Injunctions
`
`Plaintiff filed three Preliminary Injunctions with the Court, two of which are related to the
`
`November 5, 2024 election. (the First Preliminary Injunction and the Second Preliminary
`
`Injunction, together, the “Election Injunctions,” ECF No. 73 & 105.) At this juncture, the Court
`
`raises, sua sponte, the issue of mootness in the two election-related applications for injunctions in
`
`light of the fact that the election has already passed. See Shapiro v. Barber, 2022 WL 16748733
`
`(D.N.J. 2022) (finding that a court should not address the preliminary injunction factors before
`
`first determining mootness issues); see also Korean Am. Chamber of Com. U.S.A. LLC v. Overseas
`
`Korean Agency, No. 23-04387, 2023 WL 7126447, at *3 (D.N.J. Oct. 30, 2023) (determining
`
`mootness before moving to analysis of the merits of the motion for preliminary injunction). In the
`
`Election Injunctions, Plaintiff seeks changes to the electoral process prior to the 2024 U.S.
`
`presidential election. (See ECF Nos. 73 & 105.)
`
`A U.S. federal court can only adjudicate live cases and controversies. See Overseas Korean
`
`Agency, 2023 WL 7126447, at *3 (citing Rendell v. Rumsfeld, 484 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 2007)).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cv-00040-ZNQ-TJB Document 123 Filed 11/26/24 Page 10 of 18 PageID:
`5678
`
`In the case of preliminary injunctions, courts may deny injunctive relief for mootness when the
`
`requested relief can no longer be granted due to a change in circumstances. See Bower v. Cannon,
`
`2018 WL 4204441, at *3 (D.N.J. Sept. 4, 2018). Here, the Court understands Plaintiff’s Election
`
`Injunctions and the majority of the related evidence to relate to the November 5, 2024 election,
`
`which has already occurred. (See generally ECF Nos. 73, 77, 105, 106.) As the election has
`
`already passed, the Court finds the Election Injunctions are moot, as the Court cannot offer any
`
`relief. See Lazur v. Moser, Civ. No. 21-57, 2022 WL 2719473, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2022)
`
`(“[W]hen it is no longer possible for this court to grant the relief requested, a case is moot and this
`
`court lacks jurisdiction to hear it.”); see also Overseas Korean Agency, 2023 WL 7126447, at *3
`
`(denying a preliminary injunction as moot where the primary events complained of in the motions
`
`for preliminary injunction had already occurred).
`
`Under certain circumstances, there can be an exception to the “live controversy”
`
`requirement for preliminary injunctions, known as the “capable of repetition” exception, even if
`
`the preliminary injunction is otherwise moot. Overseas Korean Agency, 2023 WL 7126447, at *4.
`
`However, that exception only applies where “(1) the challenged action is, in its duration, too short
`
`to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that
`
`the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again.” Id. (quoting Rendell v.
`
`Rumsfeld, 484 F.3d 236, 241 (3d Cir. 2007)). Given there are four years before the next federal
`
`presidential election, and two years until the next midterm election, Plaintiff “will have ample
`
`time, if necessary, to bring a new motion for injunctive relief” meaning that “any future challenged
`
`action will not be ‘too short in duration to be fully litigated before the case will become moot.’”
`
`Overseas Korean Agency, 2023 WL 7126447, at *4 (quoting Donovan ex rel. Donovan v.
`
`Punxsutawney Area Sch. Bd., 336 F.3d 211, 217 (3d Cir. 2003)). Therefore, the “capable of
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cv-00040-ZNQ-TJB Document 123 Filed 11/26/24 Page 11 of 18 PageID:
`5679
`
`repetition” exception does not apply to Plaintiff’s two Election Injunctions. See Seneca Res. Corp.
`
`v. Twp. of Highland, Elk Cnty., Pa., 863 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 2017) (finding that the “capable of
`
`repetition” exception did not apply where there was sufficient time for the court to intervene).
`
`As such, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctions related to the U.S.
`
`election on November 5, 2024, (ECF Nos. 77, 105) as moot.
`
`B.
`
`STANDING
`
`Moving to the substance of Plaintiff’s AC, Defendants argue that Plaintiff lacks standing
`
`because she (1) cannot establish an injury-in-fact, and (2) does not have standing to sue under the
`
`statutes she brings this case under. (See generally the MTDs.) If Plaintiff lacks standing, the Court
`
`has no subject matter jurisdiction over this case. See, e.g., Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818
`
`(1997) (plaintiff bears to burden to establish their “standing to sue”); Behar v. Murphy, Civ. No.
`
`20-5206, 2020 WL 6375707 at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 30, 2020) (standing is a jurisdictional matter); St.
`
`Thomas - St. John Hotel & Tourism Ass’n v. U.S. Virgin Islands, 218 F.3d 232, 240 (3d Cir. 2000)
`
`(same).
`
`“[T]he grounds for jurisdiction must be clear on the face of the pleading that initiates the
`
`case.” Goldman v. Citigroup Glob. Markets Inc., 834 F.3d 242, 249 (3d Cir. 2016) (citation
`
`omitted). While Plaintiff does not coherently oppose Defendants’ standing arguments, the Court
`
`understands Plaintiff to contend that she has demonstrated an injury-in-fact because, among other
`
`similar facts: she was not able to secure an attorney for these proceedings, violating her right to an
`
`attorney (AC at 5); Defendant Christopher Christie’s property management company contacted
`
`“Plaintiff’s spouse for contracted services at his commercial property twice” which Plaintiff
`
`characterizes as “tampering and intimidation (ECF No. 57 at 25); Defendant Christopher Wray
`
`also contacted Plaintiff’s spouse for contracted services, and “gave Plaintiff’s spouse and her son
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cv-00040-ZNQ-TJB Document 123 Filed 11/26/24 Page 12 of 18 PageID:
`5680
`
`CIA token coins and made it a point to expound on touring his trophy office,” which Plaintiff
`
`characterizes as tampering and intimidation (id. at 26); a woman of Plaintiff’s acquaintance
`
`suffered from domestic violence similar to that of a victim of non-parties the Awan brothers, who
`
`Plaintiff alleges have extensive relationships with Defendants (id.); and the DNC’s support of
`
`President Biden “is causational in the palpable disclosure of risk to personal life, liberty, and
`
`property,” (id. at 27).
`
`As a general matter, Plaintiff states that the “lawfare being waged” by President Biden
`
`violates Plaintiff’s civil rights “including but not limited to privacy rights” and her rights under
`
`the Help America Vote Act. (Id.) Plaintiff’s oppositions further include allegations that the NYS
`
`Defendants’ are liable for harm against Plaintiff because Plaintiff’s sibling died from Covid-19 in
`
`New York State; that Plaintiff has suffered harm to her reputation and business due to needing to
`
`shut down her office due to the alleged witness tampering and intimidation cited above, and has
`
`therefore experienced financial instability and issues with her property; and that the treasonous
`
`activities on behalf of Defendants “provided and continue to provide great risk of harm to
`
`Plaintiff’s Civil Rights and life, liberty, and property. (ECF No. 60 at 5, 32, 36; ECF No. 69 at 2,
`
`5-7, 19, 21, 22.)
`
`To allege injury-in-fact, “a plaintiff must claim the invasion of a concrete and
`
`particularized legally protected interest resulting in harm that is actual or imminent, not conjectural
`
`or hypothetical.” Nickelodeon, 827 F.3d at 272 (quoting Finkelman, 810 F.3d at 193) (internal
`
`quotations omitted). A harm is “concrete” only “if it is ‘de facto’; that is, it must actually exist”—
`
`it cannot be merely “abstract.” Id. (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 340 (2016)). To
`
`satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement, the injury must be “particularized,” such that it affects the
`
`plaintiff in a “personal and individual way.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 n.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cv-00040-ZNQ-TJB Document 123 Filed 11/26/24 Page 13 of 18 PageID:
`5681
`
`1 (1992). The Supreme Court has emphasized that the injury must also be “concrete in both a
`
`qualitative and temporal sense”; in other words, the “complainant must allege an injury to himself
`
`that is distinct and palpable, as opposed to merely [a]bstract, and the alleged harm must be actual
`
`or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990)
`
`(internal quotations and citations omitted).
`
`To that end, allegations of a potential future injury, or the mere possibility of a future injury,
`
`will not establish standing. See id. at 158; Reilly v. Ceridian Corp., 664 F.3d 38, 42 (3d Cir. 2011)
`
`(“Allegations of ‘possible future injury’ are not sufficient to satisfy Article III”).
`
`The Court cannot ascertain concrete actions by Defendants that Plaintiff alleges harmed
`
`her specifically, other than conclusory statements that Defendants are liable for a multitude of sins
`
`and problems, including some facially unrelated to the activities alleged in the AC. Given
`
`Plaintiff’s failure to provide any evidence of a specific and concrete injury-in-fact beyond self-
`
`serving allegations, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s