“Lack of claim” is an element of standing applied to the plaintiff, not an element of jurisdiction applied to the court.
Once jurisdiction is accepted by the court, to gain standing, one of the elements the plaintiff must show the court is a claim in controversy that the court can remedy. “Failure to state a claim” is legal shorthand for failure to request a remedy or lack of remedy that the court can apply within its jurisdiction.
It appears to me that once Obama was inaugurated, the court where Hollister filed lost jurisdiction. Only a limited category of plaintiffs (not appearing to include Hollister) can currently have standing to challenge Obama’s eligibility in quo warranto in the DC Circuit.
To repeat the question he raises at the end of that argument. Why would a de facto officer who is not de jure be immune from the operation of that doctrine just because he is de facto and not de jure in the Oval Office rather than in a lesser office? What wouild exempt the defendant Soetoro a/k/a Obama from the law in that regard?
See the FR thread at this link for a discussion of that brief which includes a discussion on the de facto officer doctrine as set out by the Supreme Court.