A federal inmate who attempted to sue current U.S. President Donald Trump and dozens of federal officials over the constitutionality of criminal prosecutions has had his lawsuit dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff, Garry David Gallardo of FCI Hazelton, sought to bring a class action on behalf of 91 other prisoners, but the court ruled that his legal claims were frivolous and his filing was procedurally improper, dismissing the case without prejudice.
The Complaint and the Attempted Class Action
Gallardo filed the lawsuit naming President Donald Trump as a defendant, alleging that the federal government lacks constitutional authority to prosecute criminal cases in federal court. In addition, he attempted to represent more than 90 inmates by filing the case as a class action, even though none of the other prisoners submitted signatures, fee applications, or financial disclosures required to join the action.
Because Gallardo alone filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), the court determined that he was the only person eligible to proceed as a plaintiff. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, every incarcerated plaintiff must individually file a sworn application and six-month financial statement before participating in a lawsuit. The court emphasized that each prisoner must contribute to filing fees and that no one else in the complaint complied with those requirements.
Legal Limits on Representing Others
The court further ruled that Gallardo could not represent other inmates because federal law prohibits non-attorneys from filing lawsuits on behalf of others in federal court. A pro se litigant may represent only themself, and Gallardo’s attempt to bring a case on behalf of 91 prisoners violated that rule.
Gallardo’s Constitutional Challenge to Federal Criminal Cases
Even as to Gallardo alone, the judge found that his central argument—that Article III of the U.S. Constitution does not authorize federal courts to adjudicate criminal cases—had no basis in law. The court described the theory as “patently frivolous,” noting that federal jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions has been recognized throughout American history. A lawsuit based on a legally baseless theory does not give the court jurisdiction to hear the case at all.
Dismissal and Denial of Additional Motions
Because Gallardo failed to comply with filing requirements and presented claims without legal merit, the court dismissed the case without prejudice. His requests to certify the case as a class action and to have counsel appointed were also denied.