La Fuente v. Nago
Decision Date | 28 March 2017 |
Docket Number | CIVIL 16-00398 LEK-KJM |
Parties | "ROCKY" ROQUE DE LA FUENTE, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT T. NAGO, in his official capacity as Chief Election Officer, State of Hawaii, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
Before the Court is Defendants Scott T. Nago, in his official capacity as Chief Election Officer ("Nago"), and the State of Hawaii's (collectively "Defendants") Motion to Dismiss ("Motion"), filed on September 27, 2016. [Dkt. no. 15.] Pro se Plaintiff Roque De La Fuente ("Plaintiff") did not file a memorandum in opposition, and the Court therefore considers the Motion unopposed. The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i ("Local Rules"). After careful consideration of the Motion, the supporting memorandum, and the relevant legal authority, Defendants' Motion is HEREBY GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the reasons set forth below.
Plaintiff was an independent candidate for President of the United States who wanted to form a new political party, but claims that he was unable to do so because of deadlines imposed by Hawai`i law. [Complaint for: 1) Violation of the Due Process Clause - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Undue Burden 2) Violation of the Equal Protection Clause ("Complaint"), filed 7/19/16 (dkt. no. 1), at ¶¶ 1-2, 7.] Plaintiff states that Nago is the "delegated official in charge of the administration of elections." [Id. at ¶ 8.] Pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 11-62, the deadline to submit signatures to have his new party placed on a ballot for the November 2016 election was February 25, 2016, at 4:30 p.m. [Id. at ¶ 11.] Plaintiff asserts that this is the earliest deadline in the entire country, and, in addition, Hawai`i requires more signatures to form a new party than most other states. [Id. at ¶¶ 12-15.]
Plaintiff brings two claims for relief. First, he alleges that Defendants, acting under the color of state law, have: "deprived and severely burden[ed] Plaintiff's political speech and political association rights in direct violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution"; and "deprived Plaintiff of the rights, privileges and immunities secured to him under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and [42 U.S.C.§ 1983] to participate in the democratic process free from unreasonable impediments, undue restraints on core political speech, and discriminatory ballot access restrictions" ("Count I"). [Id. at ¶¶ 19-20.] Second, Plaintiff asserts that enforcement of § 11-62 has deprived him of his Fourteenth Amendment rights by preventing him from "participat[ing] in the democratic process free from discriminatory action" because it "make[s] it impossible to organize and qualify a political party for election ballot purposes before the November General election" ("Count II").1 [Id. at ¶ 23.] Plaintiff seeks: declaratory relief; a permanent injunction;2 reasonable fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and "such other and furtherrelief as the Court may deem just and proper." [Id., Prayer for Relief ¶¶ A-D.]
As a preliminary matter, the Court "liberally construes [Plaintiff's] filings because [he] is proceeding pro se." See Pregana v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Civil No. 14-00226 DKW-KSC, 2015 WL 1966671, at *2 (D. Hawai`i Apr. 30, 2015) (citing Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987)). "'Pro se litigations must [nonetheless] follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.'" Id. (alteration in Pregana) (quoting King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012)).
Temple v. Abercrombie, 903 F. Supp. 2d 1024, 1030-31 (D. Hawai`i 2012).
Defendants argue that the Motion should be granted because Plaintiff lacks standing. Specifically, Defendants argue that, while Plaintiff challenges the statutory filing deadline to form a new political party, he "does not allege that he could have secured the number of required signatures from registered voters or that he attempted to do so in February or at any time after that." [Mem. in Supp. of Motion at 9 (emphasis omitted).] Further, Defendants argue that "[i]f Plaintiff could not have secured the required signatures even with a later deadline, then [Haw. Rev. Stat.] § 11-62 did not cause his alleged injury and enjoining it would provide him no relief." [Id. at 10.] In short, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not shown injury, causation, or redressability.
"Article III of the Constitution requires that a plaintiff have standing before a case may be adjudicated." Covington v. Jefferson Cty., 358 F.3d 626, 637 (9th Cir. 2004). Standing requires: "(1) an injury in fact that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent; (2) that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." Id. at 637-38 (alterations, footnote, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). This district court has stated:
Amsterdam v. Abercrombie, Civil No. 13-00649 SOM-KSC, 2014 WL 689764, at *2 (D. Hawai`i Feb. 19, 2014) (footnote omitted).
Defendants bring a facial challenge to the Complaint, and, taking the factual allegations as true and reading them in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, he has standing in the instant matter. Plaintiff submits that: (1) he wanted to form a new political party; (2) the deadline under Hawai`i law, which he alleges is earlier than most other states, prevented him from doing so; and (3) his access to the Hawai`i ballot was blocked as a result. He has alleged an imminent, concrete injury that is traceable to Hawai`i law and that, at least in theory, can be redressed by a favorable decision. Therefore, insofar as Defendants' Motion seeks dismissal of the instant action for lack of standing, it is HEREBY DENIED.3
Defendants do not argue that this case is moot, but "[b]ecause mootness is a jurisdictional issue, we are obliged to raise it sua sponte." Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted). The Ninth Circuit has stated:
It is an inexorable command of the United States Constitution that the federal courts confine themselves to deciding actual cases and controversies. See U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. . . . Article III requires that a live controversy persist throughout all stages of the litigation. SeeSteffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 n.10, 94 S. Ct. 1209, 39 L. Ed. 2d 505 (1974) ().
Id. at 1128-29. Here, Plaintiff sought to form a new political party, and wanted that party to be on the ballot during 2016 election. [Complaint at ¶ 7.] In Arizona Green Party v. Reagan, the Arizona Green Party was not allowed on the 2014 Arizona ballot because it missed the deadline for official party recognition. 838 F.3d 983, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2016). The Arizona Green Party alleged that the requirements for party recognition violated its rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, id. at 987, and by the time the Ninth Circuit issued its decision, the 2014 election was over. The Ninth Circuit concluded:
The 2014 election has come and gone, so we cannot devise a remedy that will put the Green Party on the ballot for that election cycle. All specific demands for relief...
To continue reading
Request your trial