Acosta v. Wolf, CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-2528
| Decision Date | 30 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-2528 |
| Parties | ORLANDO A. ACOSTA v. GOVERNOR TOM WOLF, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Philadelphian Orlando A. Acosta wants us to place him on Pennsylvania's November 3, 2020 general election ballot as an independent candidate for the United States House of Representatives. Without paying the filing fees, he pro se alleges Pennsylvania's Governor and Secretary's emergency orders to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic impede his ability to presently acquire the 1,000 signatures due by August 3, 2020 and thus apply for a job with the federal government enforcement. He reaches to claim these now-expired emergency orders impede his right as a person receiving disability payments to apply for employment as a Congressperson under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. As he hopes to proceed without paying fees, Congress requires we screen his complaint before proceeding. After we dismissed his first complaint for failure to state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause and the Americans with Disabilities Act, Mr. Acosta amended his complaint requiring we screen his new civil rights and disabilities employee applicant claims. He is not applying for a job with the Commonwealth or the United States. His claims are frivolous. After screening, we dismiss Mr. Acosta's amended complaint with prejudice.
In this second attempt, Mr. Acosta alleges the Governor's now-expired COVID-19 emergency orders preclude him from getting the required number of signatures from registered voters to sign his "nominating papers" to appear on the November 3, 2020 election ballot as a candidate for the House of Representatives.1 Pennsylvania Law requires all candidates for the United States House of Representatives to collect 1,000 signatures from registered voters to appear on the ballot.2 The nominating papers must be submitted to the Secretary of the Commonwealth by the filing deadline3; this election cycle, the filing deadline is August 3, 2020.4
Mr. Acosta does not challenge the Governor's authority to issue emergency orders in response to a statewide emergency.5 But with registered voters ordered to stay at home until recently, Mr. Acosta pleads he cannot share his political platform with registered voters and have his paperwork signed.6 Even when the emergency orders expire (as they did on Saturday, June 5, 2020), Mr. Acosta alleges he still does not want to interact with registered voters because there is no vaccine for COVID-19 and his cerebral palsy and asthma place him at a higher risk for contracting a severe coronavirus infection.7 Mr. Acosta does not plead how many signatures he collected before the Governor issued the emergency orders. Mr. Acosta also does not plead whether he attempted to collect signatures while the executive emergency orders were in place.
Mr. Acosta asks us to order Governor Wolf and Secretary Boockvar to exempt him from Pennsylvania's signature requirement and place him on the November 3, 2020 general election ballot.8 Mr. Acosta claims he is entitled to this extraordinary relief because his "employer" is violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and discriminating against him under the Americans with Disabilities Act by enforcing the signature requirement amid the COVID-19 pandemic.9
As he has done in the last couple of years with no success, Mr. Acosta sued without paying the required fees and then moved to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.10 We granted him leave to proceed following review of his sworn but curious declaration of income and assets.11 Congress requires, upon granting him leave to proceed without paying the fees, we must screen his complaint for merit. If his claim lacks merit, we dismiss before causing the Clerk of Court to issue summons, the Marshal to effect service, and the defendants to incur costs and fees in responding. When considering whether to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), we use the same standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).12 "'[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations, taken as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"13 "We accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."14 We are directed by our Court of Appeals to be "mindful of our 'obligation to liberally construe a pro se litigant's pleadings ...'"15
The issue is whether Mr. Acosta states a claim for employment discrimination because he claims to be unable to access potential voters to sign his nominating papers. We begin by taking judicial notice of two facts concerning this year's election: Pennsylvania requires individuals seeking to appear on the ballot as a candidate for the United States House of Representatives to collect signatures from at least one thousand registered voters.16 Candidates for this election cycle must submit the signed paperwork with the Secretary of the Commonwealth by August 3, 2020.17
Mr. Acosta seeks to be placed on the ballot because the Commonwealth's signature requirement during the COVID-19 pandemic violates his rights as an employee, or an applicant for a job, to be free from discrimination based on the civil rights and disabilities law.
Mr. Acosta sues the Commonwealth's Governor and Secretary arguing they discriminate against him in employment under the civil rights and disabilities law. But they are not his employer.18 He is not even an applicant for a job with them or the Commonwealth.19 He seeks to run for public office in the federal government.
Mr. Acosta alleges the Commonwealth's Governor and Secretary are depriving him of his civil rights as his employer. His claim is frivolous.
Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens."20 Because Mr. Acosta alleges his "employer" is violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we infer Mr. Acosta alleges a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is the statute's title addressing equal employment opportunities.
But Mr. Acosta's fails to state a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The purpose of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is to prohibit an employer from "discriminat[ing] against any individual ... because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin[.]"21 But in his complaint, Mr. Acosta does not allege to be harmed because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Even if he sued an employer, we cannot infer Mr. Acosta's claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he does not plead his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Mr. Acosta pleads for placement on the ballot because the Commonwealth's signature requirement during the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes employment discrimination under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.22 This claim is frivolous.
Congress passed the Disabilities Act, in part, "to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities[.]"23 Congress defines a "disability" as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual[.]"24 Because cerebral palsy is a medical condition affecting a person's ability "to move and maintain balance and posture"25 and asthma is a disease affecting lung capability,26 we infer Mr. Acosta's alleged disabilities to fall within the scope of a "disability" under the Act.
But Mr. Acosta fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Like his civil rights claim, the Act exempts "the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the government of the United States, or an Indian tribe" as an "employer" as defined by the statute.27 Perhaps Mr. Acosta believes running for public office in the federal government is similar to applying for a job in the private sector, but this view is mistaken. The United States is neither Mr. Acosta's prospective nor current "employer." We cannot grant relief for a candidate alleging the United States as an "employer" is discriminating against Mr. Acosta under the Act. He is also suing the Governor and Secretary alleging they are discriminating against him. They do not seek to hire him. He is not seeking Commonwealth office.
Even if we accept Mr. Acosta's claim alleging the Commonwealth's signature requirement in the current COVID-19 pandemic is difficult to satisfy, Mr. Acosta still fails to allege how the state's ballot access framework discriminates against him. The Commonwealth imposes the samesignature requirement on all individuals working to secure a place on the ballot as a candidate for the United States House of Representatives. All of Mr. Acosta's competitors are constrained by the COVID-19 pandemic. No state law, emergency order, or coronavirus pandemic has demanded Mr. Acosta cease collecting signatures. Nothing prohibits Mr. Acosta from asking volunteers or hiring assistance to help gather signatures either.28
Mr. Acosta's Disabilities Act claim is frivolous.
Mr. Acosta requests an order placing him on the ballot. But the Constitution mandates: "[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall for be prescribed in...
To continue reading
Request your trial